Sony’s PlayStation Now Service Feels Like Highway Robbery

The problem with the PlayStation Now service is that Sony, at least at this moment, seems very confused about what they want Now to become. Despite having an undeniably brilliant idea on their hands, allowing the millions of PlayStation 4 owners to rent titles digitally, Sony has dropped the ball from an early stage, demanding prices that are ludicrous to the point that there is virtually no defending them.

[Xsilver]

ok Sony it's time to go to a Subscription Plan.

[Mikelarry]

they are going to have to whether they like it or not, especially now that EA has come out with access if it catches on with other publishers sony will lose big time as they have invested too much in now to let it become a failure. also the subscription prices needs to be reasonable

[iamnsuperman]

PS Now is NOT like EA access. EA access require the user to run the game locally (downloaded it and play it) which is unlike PS Now (which is a streaming service) as PS Now can theoretically run on less capable devices. EA access is just plus but just for EA titles (exactly the same model)

Now Sony will have to go to a subscription model not because of EA access. But because no one will be using it and Sony invested a lot in the tech

[Vitalogy]

What I dislike the most is the fact that they're charging for a beta, wanting for people to pay to test? But I honestly don't even blame them, I blame those who are actually paying for it.

You want people to test your service, you make it properly and don't charge for it.

[Muerte2494]

I don't think you're understanding the difference between the two. EA access is similar to PS+ as it allows you to get some games for free and discounts for the others. PS Now is comparable to Gaikai and OnLive. Each publisher sets their own prices.

http://www.forbes.com/sites...

"Variable pricing is in place because Sony gave the publishers and developers free reign to set their own prices, which results in wildly disparate costs for different games and different periods of rental time. It’s not even mandatory that you have to have all four categories of rental time."

[Mikelarry]

@iamnsuperman

I think you read my comment wrong. I never mentioned that EA access was like psnow, what I meant was if the publishers get on board with going the access route Sony will lose big time as they make some profits from publishers using their platform to reach consumers.

Are you that naive to believe EA access is not a threat to Sony psnow. EA access will be the first of many and if Sony is smart they will try to get ahead of the curve to entice both publishers and consumers to stick to Sony platform

@ iammsuperman:

guess we will have to see how this plays out

@ death

very good point, i cant speak for anyone but myself about not having realistic expectation for this service because i am for $5 a month to stream all games. i think it also does not help that most gaming media and gamers associate this to netflix so we some how expect the affordability and flexibility of netflix to apply here

[iamnsuperman]

@mikelarry

I think the biggest difference is EA will have no choice but to support PS Now or other similar services unless they create their own streaming service. PS Now is being poised to turn up on Tvs, phones you name it. EA access has a limited scope that can't tap those areas of revenue (due it needed to be run locally). EA is unlikely to deny getting paid just because they have a service that needs a capable machine to work. They are more likely to deny plus access as both service require the same thing to work. EA access is no threat to PS Now but plus

[Death]

The problem Sony will face with PSNow is creating value for the customer while making a profit with the service. Gamers seem to be settling on $14.99-$19.99 a month for a subscription. Seems like a fair price on the customer side, but Sony will not make money offering 100+ games for about $.10 a piece. Games are consumable with many gamers beating them and moving to the next. While unlikely anyone will play 122 games in a month, once they do play all the games they like what is the incentive to keep subscribing? The best bet is to offer a selection of 100+ games, but offer a cap on how many can be streamed a month if they go with a subscription plan. Possibly with 5 games in a month for $14.99 which makes each game $3. Even then the amount Sony makes would be very small and may not cover the ocsts of the service.

I don't think gamers have a realistic expectation of the costs incurred to do this. It is very possible the existing customer base is not the target audience for PSNow. It's my opinion that PSNow will compete with the PS4 over customers with more casual gamers not interested in buying hardware being the target audience for the service.

[dc1]

If other publishers do the same then we (consumers) lose.
5 different plans for each of the major publishers = a potential 20.00 per month or 200+ per year.

EA's service is competing with PS+ not ps now.

[GUTZnPAPERCUTZ]

What I don't like about PS Now, is the streaming. Everyone who has played it says it runs a mostly solid 30fps, but the slight streaming compression of 720p makes it worse. Downloading the title would look better, BUT that is the problem with older gen games and the new X86 (64bit)arch. They have to stream older games :/

[EData]

PS Now is about convenience, and hopefully, value, that is the selling point, just like Netflix. Of course you could go buy all the games used for cheap, you could buy Netflix movies exactly the same way. PS Now's library will grow just like it already has drastically.

I see no reason why Sony could charge $15 - $20 and not make profit, even if it is a relatively smallish profit in the beginning. There is no doubt in my mind this service could be a hit.

[morganfell]

@Vitalogy - so you do not believe in early access for games either? Suppose I look at your post history? Would I find a similar opinion on that?

Death is absolutely correct. Anyone that thinks Sony can make even a nickle on a $20 a month subscription is wrong. Sony would lose tons of money.

Think of it this way. You can finish most AAA games in a day, minus multiplayer. Theoretically - because that is the manner in which publishers participating in Now will look at it, theoretically - you could finish 30 games in 30 days. We know that is not necessarily feasible for most people but publishers will assume it is their games you are finishing. Think of the cost in those terms.

[okmrman]

http://assets.vg247.com/cur...

[Consoldtobots]

to me it sounds like Sony doesn't truly understand the power of this platform. You are providing publishers with a vehicle to deliver content on a level unprecedented. You(Sony) can dictate prices and publishers will have to comply if they want access to the massive PSN userbase.

dumb dumb dumb

[incredibleMULK]

I don't know, Sony is used to failure. I had high hopes for psnow, now its blowing up in their face like a trick cigar.

I guess its cosmic retribution for firing a bunch of loyal PS managers like Jack Denton and shutting down zipper.

[morganfell]

@,

No. Just no. Publishers are accessing a vast majority of those consumers anyway. What you want is for them to slash their profits to rech more people. Now that would be dumb. News flash. Games cost money. Story at 11.

[spacedelete]

i still don't see any point in PlayStation Now. why pay to rent games when all of the best last gen games are getting remastered anyway ? even Sony is doing it with The Last Of Us which could have been a big reason for people to pay up. with a remastered game you get the best image, framerate and its on disc so you actually own it unlike streaming which is just throwing money away.

even if theres a subscription it will still fail as all the best PS3 games are getting remastered. if i was Sony i would cancel PlayStation Now ASAP as its going to lose them a tonne of money.running servers isn't cheap.

[fr0sty]

Sony have already made it very clear they are very interested in a subscription service for Now. As for the paid beta, part of working out the bugs is also working out the bugs in pricing, doing market analysis and seeing who is willing to pay for what, and then setting your prices when the service matures out of beta. this isn't just a test on the tech, but a test on the market for the tech.

[donthate]

The fact that Sony has now released it as an open beta essentially means the prices are there to stay. Beta is just a term these day to raise a shield and say "we are not responsible for problems"!

Depending on uptake and amount, publishers might not care if PS Now succeeds or not so they aren't likely willing to subsidize Sony's success.

[BLuTheSecond]

Like I said before: Sony should just add this to PSN Plus instead of making it a separate service and then increase the price of PSN Plus to $60 a year to compensate for the added value.

[truefan1]

This is going to hurt Sony greatly, I'm guessing the prices being high has something to do with paying the publishers and the $380 million cost of Gaikai. Sony is going to have to cut the price of psnow significantly if they want to give it any chance of success. To be honest, psnow seems destined to fail because of price and streaming lag. They should have just done backwards compatibility, they're fans would have been satisfied.

PS the only way a subscription would work is if psnow is only for games owned by sony, otherwise they would be losing money after having to pay publishers for their games.

[XiNarutoUzumaki]

''To be honest, psnow seems destined to fail because of price and streaming lag. ''

And here you are once again talking shiet without any proof. I tried it yesterday with Twisted Metal, and I didn't have any lag. 12 mpbs is my Internet. Yours must suck.

Also. It is so early to say it is destined to fail, unless you want it to fail. can't expect less from someone like you. With all these negative feedback toward this, Sony might change to a subscription plan. Le't hope they listen and fix it.

''They should have just done backwards compatibility, they're fans would have been satisfied. ''

Yes, but PS4 has no Cell Processor. Let it go and Move on. What about your dear Microsoft? Did they add BC too? No? STFU then.

[johndoe11211]

So I guess the only way netflix should have worked was if they only showed movies developed by netfix because they should be loosing money having to pay all those studios for all those different movies.

Your wisdom continues to astound me.

[EData]

lol lag, like you would know. Most articles I read on it stated little to NO lag. But I am sure you would just love it to fail judging by your comment history. yikes.

I think the pricing and content are the only two things that will dictate whether or not it succeeds. And the content is growing drastically. I feel prices will be worked out, they already mentioned a subscription model many times in the past and once a few days ago. They just need to understand their current price model is pretty bad.

[MysticStrummer]

Here's what I see before "To be honest…", which is where I stopped reading because… well… it's you. :

Speculation + guesswork + opinion

[gangsta_red]

Funny how everyone rips cloud compute without trying it but no one can say the same for PSNow...even tho few have tried it. I tried OnLive and there was lag. Does this mean PSNow could be the same? Especially for multiplayer games?

[kenshiro100]

You never have anything constructive to say, do you?

You're the worst kind of fanboy on a gaming site.

[averagejoe26]

@true

Actually... No... The prices are that way because the publishers set the price... NOT Sony... Research before you speak on that which you know nothing of

[Eonjay]

You oponion is fine but know that it doesn't lag. Ir really doesn't. Even when playing fast paced action games.

The reason why it may succeed is because it actually works. A library of games, like Netflix Library of movies, that start instantly.

[S2Killinit]

@truefan1
Im playing a game right now (Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath) no lag here bro

[AndrewLB]

XiNarutoUzumaki- My brother has Time Warner Cable 200 megabit internet and he tells me that he is only able to download like 1.5Mb/sec. 200 megabit gets you an effective download speed of 27-28Mb/sec and his PS4 is wired using gigabit ethernet. So it's clearly not on his end. It reminds me of the great download speeds that I get with my PS Vita except in my case, I believe it's the Vita's wifi that just sucks.

[nerdman67]

As of right now I dont think they can, it would be too expensive for them.
The companies who made the games would probably want some kind of compensation from sony, which would add up and lead to a rather expensive subscription fee.

[RzaDaRazor]

Let's say I pay for a 4-hour rental, then my internet goes out or I have something I must go take care of and can't get back to my house in four hours. I'm screwed. This is the worst business model that I've seen in a while. They absolutely cannot expect people to sit and play the game for four hours straight or one day straight. Completely stupid.

[dragon82]

What happens if you rented a game from Redbox for a day and had something come up? Redbox absolutely cannot expect people to sit and play a game for one day straight. Completely stupid.

See how stupid that sounds?

[wsoutlaw87]

Um u lossed a large 4$ and need to plan things better. Bad arguement.

[ShadowWolf712]

I believe the "4 Hour" models are designed by the publishers around people trying before buying, not to expect you to beat the game.

It's still not as good as actually going out and renting it, but it'd definitely let you get a feel for whether you like a game or not.

[Flare149]

Way back when they bought Gaikai it seemed like the obvious answer would be subscriptions, perhaps based on a number of hours a month, but definitely not limited to one title. And then for someone who really enjoyed a game an option to pay that $25 or whatever and just buy it so it would always be available to stream.

I think there's gonna be a lot of contract negotiation that needs to happen, but if they can get it together like Netflix (even if it's more, like $15 a month or something) then it could be really stellar. Plus there would still be that option to just buy specific titles for good, like if someone didn't want to pay the montly fee but wanted to have access to as many Metal Gear games as possible on the PS4

[FanboyKilla]

I think sony is in big trouble with this. A great idea, but the execution is horrid. It looks like it costs more to operate than the actual profit. I mean i looked at it and left. You have been spending money, and countless hours into this, and i dismissed it within seconds. Uh oh. This has clearly been sonys focus thus far, and it is as i expected, a waste of time so far. Now i have no new games for my ps4, and a bunch of overpriced old games i dont want to play. Uh oh.

Im sure they are testing the water, but from the looks of it, their profit margin that they would like to make, is around these price points. Hell maybe olive garden commercials will start popping up during gameplay. JJ but it might go there. You buy that gaikai whatever, and you produce this. Sony as a company cant afford a loss like this. Im sure they are running around trying to get it right. All i can say is uh oh.

[Muzikguy]

I'd love to see a subscription plan. I can't see it being very affordable though considering the prices they're charging now but who knows

[SonyPS4]

It's a difficult decision for Sony. Operating cloud services for applications the scale of PS3 games is very expensive and requires a lot of hardware as well as maintenance. It will get worse when more users are simultaneously using it.

Given that, and the severely dated internet infrastructure in the US, 2014 is just way to soon for cloud gaming. This kind of technology will become cheap and readily available in no less than 10 years.

[Bigpappy]

If it is above $8/m, it will be a very tough sell. We are talking strictly old games here. I don't see very many people handing over $20 a month to play just old games that they have already played or passed on before.

EA may not have that vast library on their on, but if other developers follow suit, we could easily give one $5 this month and the other $5 the next month, with much better quality and more recent games to boot. I would say at this point, Sony needs to think fast as to how they are going to get this streaming service to succeed at providing the value, Onlive and Gaikai could not. I would like them to make they money back, but they have to find away to offer the value to users they said EA was not providing. You can't charge premium price for access to a library of old games. Find a way to profit by having every PS4 owner seeing value in signing up.

[nunley33]

The prices aren't too bad and is actually cheaper than the 2 bucks a day redbox charges if you don't do the 4hr rental. $7.99 for a 7 day rental or 11 or 12 dollars for a 30 day rental is reasonable and not robbery at all. But this seems directed at people without a PS3 since you could just buy the game for what the 90 day typically costs. I would just like to see the 4hr period change to 24hrs. Introduce a way for me to stream my purchased PSN games, whether have it a plus feature or an xtra fee.

[AndrewLB]

I think all this subscription crap should just go away. Everyone should just pay for their games up front like we've always done via an actual disc or digital download. Companies like Microsoft, Sony, EA, etc are all setting up these subscription type systems, regardless of them being streaming or locally run, with the sole purpose of extracting more money out of the gamer. And at the same time, many people here seem to have an irrational expectation of these companies giving you full access to unlimited games for an obscenely low price which would never work for game developers. Why on earth would these companies give you access to even a single game for $5/mo... heck... even 15/mo! The damn game costs $60 at a store! The average gamer who buys a game typically gives it a play through which can take anywhere from 8 to 60 hours, and is done with it. Most games can be played through in a matter of a day or two.
Yesterday I decided to play through Crysis 3 on my PC since I never got to use the highest settings at the time It was released. 8 hours later i'm very close to the end. If I was able to get the game for $15/mo along with 3 others (one each week), that would be like me paying $3.75 for each game!! Do you all understand how insane you all sound expecting developers to pretty much give you all their hard work for pennies on the dollar?

[rainslacker]

That'd be a good way IMO. Probably wouldn't get the newest games with it, but with a big back catalog it could be worthwhile. Again I would compare it to Netflix streaming service. Newer stuff isn't there, but plenty to watch otherwise.

Other than that, they just need to find a pricing structure that works for the publishers and the consumers. At this early stage, the prices may seem ridiculous to gamers like us, but may be perfectly reasonable to people who are more casual and just want to rent a game from time to time.

[NicSage]

They could fix the situation easily I think with 3 options.

1. 30min or 1 hour demo for free.

2. 7 day rental for 7 dollars.

3. Purchase of game for x amount.

Revisit old style pricing of store rentals.

Drop the 30 & 90 day rentals.

[Godmars290]

Why are people insisting on demos or free trail periods?

$0.99 for 4 hours game time.
$1.99 for 12 hours
$2.99 for 48 hours
$3.99 for 84 hours
$4.99 for 168 hours

[MasterCornholio]

They should have two options. Either you pay a subscription to play a selection of games an unlimited amount or you pay for game time. By game time I mean if you pay for 1 hour you have exactly 1 hour of playtime with the game. Which means if you play 30 minutes now in a week you can use up the other 30 minutes.

[Godmars290]

Pretty sure that's exactly how it works. By an hour, immediately play for 20 minutes, forgot about for a week/month/year, come back and you still have 40 minutes. You're not just paying for one sitting.

Forgot to list one hour, which wold be sweet if it .25 or .50.

@Doge:
Certain by the lists I've seen that some games are free, likely just for that purpose. They also test your connection before you do anything.

[Doge]

I would love to have a demo or free trial so that I would know how well PS Now works on my end.

[Deividas]

@godmars290

Its not how it works. Machinima tested it out and if you rent it for 4 hours. You have 4 hours of realtime not gametime

@Doge
There already was a free trial, it was called "closed beta" everything was free then.

[EData]

Why not give people a week or a few days free to try it? That would help draw interest.

[Godmars290]

@Deividas"
Well, then I can see why it sucks then. It should be game time. Pretty certain that they could do it from some demos I've played. MMOs.

[S2Killinit]

@Godmars290
I think therein lies the problem. You are asking that games be given out for 1.99 for 12 hours. many games dont take that long to finish. That means they are essentially giving the game away for 1.99. On top of it, they are paying for the servers and all the costs associated with running such a service. I think, some gamers have an unreasonable expectation for the service. Not that your opinion is not legit, I'm just saying that type of pricing would lead to losses for anyone who tries it. Personally I think the 4 hour option is too expensive (or maybe should be taken out) but the 7 day one is on par with renting a game from any other outlet. I'm playing Oddword: Stranger's wrath right now, there isn't any lag that i can see. I think they have a chance to make this worthwhile if gamers give them a chance. If the service takes off, Sony could have the largest selection of streaming games anywhere, which personally i think would be a nice service. No more renting from red box that has a maximum of what 12 games? 20? that's my two cents.

[Deividas]

Those are some bad ideas man, sorry but that would not help.

And plus, you cant do a purchase of the game. Its an online streaming service...you never download the game, you stream it. And what happens when the developer wants to take the game off the service and people bought it and all of the sudden its gone? Its like a netflix...you cant buy an episode or show because they get removed and then replaced a lot.

All in all, I would rather have it like a netflix and pay monthly for the service rather than these crappy prices. I have wanted to try it but sure as hell not paying that kind of money

[falviousuk]

Yes, you can purchase games if Sony so desired

PS Now isn't new, online has been running a streaming service for a few years now and allows a subscription model to play games in the sub pack, and also lets you buy newer games which are also streamed.

[DiscoKid]

Meh. Most of these games take only an hour or two to beat anyway. The worth of a price is dependent upon the game.

[ShutUpDonny]

Sorry, but I don't think the pricing is really a problem. Let's take the average 12h SP campaign. How long does it take to finish it ? One week ? Two ? Heck, you can finish a SP campaign of Call of Duty in a day! Even if the 30 days rental of a game is half the price of buying a full game, it's still a game you can finish for 50% off. For someone like me who doesn't play multiplayer and only play a game once, it's still not that bad. OK, some of the games are ridiculously overpriced, but it doesn't need to be super cheap to be a good value. Just a little cheaper than buying the game for a reasonably long period of time.

[ruefrak]

This is my feeling. Look at games like Papa & Yo or Stick It To The Man or a number of other games that are fun playthroughs that take around 4-6 hours and once you're done, you don't really want to play it again.

Some games, like Journey, can be completed in that 4 hour rental time.

I think they should knock the options down to 1 day, 1 week, and 1 month.

[nunley33]

If you'd look you'll see 7 day rentals for $7.99 on several titles. Hell the picture in the preview shows alone in the dark, that costs $4.99 for 90 days, now is that highway robbery?

[Spotie]

Nobody cares about that shit. They only want to look at the least popular option, claim that's the primary option, and then proceed to lament how shortsighted Sony is with the pricing.

They don't give a damn about reality. They just need something to troll.

And all these so-called journalists are feeding this nonsense. It sickens me.

[ThatEnglishDude]

Alone in the Dark is massive fail though.

No one would rent it anyway.

[HAMM3RofBUDDHA]

Yeah the pricing model makes no sense. The concept and tech are neat, but not worth the costs.

[nunley33]

The pricing is good and cheaper than redbox which everybody seems to like and praise it's $2 a day rentals. Where here the rentals are alot cheaper than redbox. Maybe you'll just wait til the sub comes sometime in 2015. That would be a prudent move and the service will be far improved and expanded by then. These are early days remember and these aren't set prices.

[Steptoe]

God Sony! Sometimes your nice. The next you act like total idiots. Wake up. The people don't like the prices.

[moparful99]

Sony doesn't set the prices, the publishers do..

[Death]

"Sony doesn't set the prices, the publishers do.."

Which publisher is setting the prices for Sony published games?

[nunley33]

@Death If you were able to see the games being offered, almost all the games in it have been non-sony games. Moparful99 was correct they don't set prices but i imagine there's cooperation between sony and publishers on pricing. Killzone 3 was recently added and that's the only Sony game in the beta out of 122 being offered right now.

[BattleTorn]

I know Sony has invested a lot of money into the PS Now programs, but I feel like they'd be better off re-focusing on their PS+ discount - to make customers happy.

I personally don't have much interest in nearly all of the PS Now games, and when I tested it the Beta it wasn't the smoothest experience.

I'd much rather stick to my PS3 with my free PS+ games, and have them download to my system.

Also, for my friends that are new to PS, they really want access to the PS3's exclusive line-up, like Resistance3, inFamous2, Rachet+Clank, Uncharted...

Those are missing

[specialguest]

-

[RantandRave]

This is a BETA!!!!

Here is a copy of the email I received from Sony, hopefully it will shed a little light and stop the madness of unnecessary articles and pointless complaints.

Hi Private Beta Testers,

We just wanted to give you all a quick update on the next phases of PlayStation Now. As you may have heard, at our E3 Press Conference we announced that PlayStation Now will be moving into an Open Beta, first starting on PS4 system on July 31, 2014. We are excited to get PlayStation Now in the hands of all PS4 users - so there is a lot of excitement for July 31 to come around. If you didn't see our E3 trailer - take a look at it here.

Now it's time for Private Beta news. On 6/18 you will have seen a title rotation which includes a fresh set of games as well as the introduction of a preliminary pricing test.

Inside this first test, you will find a variety of rental prices and rental periods to choose from. These prices are ultimately decided on by the participating developers and publishers. Your feedback during this next phase of the Private Beta is extremely important, as we will be monitoring it closely.

PS. If you have a rental period in progress for a game that just got rotated out: don't worry! You will still be able to access the rental up until the end of its rental duration by finding the game in your "My Games" section.

Please give us your feedback in these Private Beta Forums or email us at [email protected] om and help shape the future of PlayStation Now

Thanks,
The PlayStation Now Team

NOTICE the use of the words "TEST" and "BETA" please.

[Freeball]

It's also a first impression, and a bad one at that. It's open for everyone to see, not a closed group of select gamers that keep up with everything. Nobody cares it's a beta, they care about pricing, and if the first thing they see is ridiculous pricing it means they'll have a hard time getting people to take a second look.

[RantandRave]

@Freeball

Email us at [email protected] om and help shape the future of PlayStation Now.

Hmmm shape the future??? I wonder if someone (a lot of people)emails them and discusses the prices if that could make a difference??? Just a thought.

[Aceman18]

If the price is the issue why don't you and everyone else complaining go to the website provided in the email provided by Sony and voice your concerns instead of whining on n4g.

I plan on it as I'm not feeling that pricing and would like it to fall under PS+ myself.

[pwnsause_returns]

TEST or BETA, doesnt matter... They should use some common sense to realize that there plans for this is pretty dumb... its not a good way to impress people with this service.

Sunbcription service or GTFO.

[Aceman18]

Go to the site and voice your concerns instead of complaining on this stupid site smdh.

I went to the Now forums and voiced my concerns about price you and the others complaining should do the same man. What's the point of complaining here on this site if they don't read it regularly?

[moparful99]

Please re read the email.. The developers and publishers dictate pricing not SONY! Thats what is aggravating me, everyone is blaming Sony and its the publishers doing.

[pwnsause_returns]

the concerns are already being voiced...by not paying for the service. eventually they will see it and they're gonna have to change their strategy.

you shouldnt be aggrivated...Sony is partly to blame since they created it. Alowing devs to price their games is a terrible mistake. there should of been standards to begin with.

[nunley33]

The beta has been very impressive over the last 3 months or more i've been trying it. The pricing isn't bad and cheaper than redbox's $2 a day pricing which most seems to praise them about. I say try it first before making these wild bandwagon claims, so much groupthink it appears. If you have a PS3 or a PS4 or wait till sometime in 2015 when the subscription plan comes in. @Novistador yeah people spend in betas every day. Look at PlayStation Home, been in beta for 6 years and i have spent alot in that over that period of time.

[Novistador]

I bet you enjoy throwing money at Sony during a Beta.

[ThatOneGuyThere]

millions of people throw money at betas every day. ever seen Farmville before? Mobsters? Mafia Wars? ANY game on facebook? yep. All betas. Source: I worked for one of these gaming companies before.

[Bigpappy]

Is this not Sony's service? They are the ones selling it to you. I don't see any developers spending a dime to promo this. If Sony is letting Dev's and pub's run their service, then I have a message for Sony: That strange felling you have inside is not a prostate check, those publishers are screwing you. You need to come forward with a workable plan and set some rules for YOUR service.

[user9558903]

Why are you defending them so hard?

[Freeball]

And then they have the balls to say that EA Access is a poor value proposition? LMAO. I like you Sony, but damn.

[ThatOneGuyThere]

EA's proposition is terrible, and only furthers EA's digital only future that removes game ownership. Sony is ultimately offering a rental service to customers who potentially dont have a game system.

[PlayableGamez]

So by your logic.
EA offers BF4 for 1 month for 4.99 plus other games is more terrible than PS Now which you can get Ben 10 for 4 hrs for $5? LOL!!

[ThatOneGuyThere]

you're missing the point entirely. The whole point of PSNow is to allow people WITHOUT a ps3 to play playstation 3, 2, 1 games. PS+ is more of a comparison to EAA, and PS+ murders it. You have to look at the long term game plan, and try to decide where you want to end up as a gamer. Do you want to end up not being able to buy used games anymore? Do you want all games to be digital only? No option to trade games with friends? You realize the reason XB1 is being stomped into the dirt is because they tried to suggest what EA is doing now? Dont let your hate for gamestop cloud your judgement. It sounds silly now, but if EAA is allowed to be a success, expect the same from every company. Eventually you'll have access-only content. Its a slippery slope.

[Death]

Sony is also pushing digital only with PS+ and PSNow. Look at the latest PSP and Vita, huge digital push. Also removes ownership since the content is non transferable and can't be resold or traded. Sony is moving away from physical media faster than anyone. Sonys little example of how easy it is to share PS4 games is becoming more of a joke every day. Microsoft's initial proposal offered game sharing digitally from miles away. Sony's digital plan is locking everything down and removing ownership by replacing it with rentals.

Think. PS4 owners think they are the target audience for PSNow. Sony has stated PS4 games can hit the service, but isn't the focus right now. PSNow is a seperate platform that can be accessed with a PS4, not so much a suppliment. It targets a completely different audience than traditional "hardcore" gamers.

[Artista]

It is highway robbery.

[ruefrak]

How? I can play through a number of games on my PS4 at prices that are a fraction of what it is to buy them. And the argument of "the 90 day rental costs more than the price of the game" but most of these games can be finished in just a few days. Why the hell would anyone rent them for 90??

[PlayableGamez]

The damage control is real within this one

[Sayai jin]

@Ruefrak...it is cheaper buying these games used or even new for some. It is very convenient to have the quick access to these games no doubt.

On topic, it is true that devs are allowed to set the prices for their games, butt Sony has their games in there too and they are overpriced. It is not going to be easy to change this to a subscription based service. It would take a while if possible., because Sony would have to have agreed contracts with each dev. Not and easy feat, It's still early , We'll have to wait and see what happens. The service is promising if the prices come down.

[ion666]

I love the saying. Makes me feel like getting on a horse and rob a stagecoach. Lets form a posse!!!

[specialguest]

Here's your BC folks. For those who defended Sony on the PSNow being an amazing alternative, I hope you're happy.

[dragonyght]

Doesn't highway robbery involve the bandit force the victims at gun point for their gold. Which part of psnow involve Sony forcing anybody I don't get that analogy.

[Duke19]

No doubt that prices will drop - they have too.

Right now, that is a service that I will not be paying for. Not sure how I like that developers are getting to set the prices, but will have to see what exactly that means down the line.

[gamingisnotacrime]

The rental of $6 for 7 days is very good. In one week one can finish the game and be done with it.

[Gr1mmyshadows]

unless you have a family who uses the TV more than you do

[ShutUpDonny]

And this is why it will be awesome on the Vita.

[gamingisnotacrime]

Your problem buddy. No service fan be perfct for every individual

[AllAboutGaming]

$10 per month for unlimited access. I pay that for Netflix and I'd pay it for PS Now. Done. Service is a success.

[FireProChamp]

Well said. Bubble up!!!!

With that price you'd have to assume at least one million people would sign up. With the current pricing I'd rather drive over to GameStop or buy the games off eBay. Much cheaper than PS Now.

[majorw2]

Used PS3 Game from GameStop : $15.00
PS3 to play Used game : $199.00

or

Rent PS3 game on PSNow and Play on PS4 : $15.00/mo

Remember, when you take that $15.00 used game back to GameStop to trade it in, they will only give to $2-5 for that same game...

Just saying that if you only have a PS4, this is a great way to play those PS3 games.

I moved my PS3 to my kids room and the PS4 is now in the living room, and I really miss playing KillZone3 ... but now I can rent it for a week on the PS4 and get my KillZone3 fix :)

[Godmars290]

You are not going to get unlimited and instant access to hundreds of titles for something like $10 a month. It wont survive, Onlive is proof of that.

[FireProChamp]

If I can stream thousands upon thousands of movies for that price, how is it not possible for 123 games?

[Godmars290]

Because, by most reasonable expectation, you're going to watch a whole movie. Not just skip a few minutes from movie to movie to movie.

At best, if you're talking a flat monthly fee, it should be a set number of slots or a slot cue like with Gamefly or Netflix's mail order system.

[Death]

A game is not a movie. Movies make their money when they are released to theaters. Once they move from theaters they make more with DVD sales. Then comes paid on-demand and lastly they hit Netflix.

Games are released to retail and have a relatively small window to make sales at $60. Used copies hit next robbing the publisher of sales. Games and movies are as apples and oranges as you can get.

[majorw2]

They can't stream games as cheap as movies because to stream the game, they have to run the game on a PS3 in a rack in a datacenter, and route your controller input back to that PS3 to control the game, then encode and stream the video to your console.

To stream the movie, they just stream a file to the player running on your tv/console.

[turnerdc]

OnLive is still alive. Actually they lowered the price a few months ago for their PlayPack to $9.95 a month. Haha, only 5 cents but a reduction nonetheless!

[rainslacker]

The way netflix does it is they have contracts where they pay the production companies a set amount to have a given number of titles. Generally they get a large back catalog for a set price. Occasionally they get newish titles on stream, but they have to pay for those separate as a way to increase the value of it's service. Other things are given with packages to promote a series(usually in the TV realm).

Something similar to this could be set up by Sony with PSNow, where they pay publishers for a back catalog of games. It's unlikely you'll see free new games up there. But it could end up looking like Amazon Prime where you have free content, and then premium content which the publishers still feel they can make money on. It's highly likely that anything with DLC could be given on PSNow in order to promote DLC/MT sales as well, not unlike you would see on PS+ right now.

In order for this to work, Sony has to have enough subscriptions to cover the ongoing costs of paying those publishers, but it seems like it would be a workable model, and likely a viable revenue stream for both the publisher and Sony.

One of the biggest problems I see facing Sony on all this is that publishers nowadays feel that their older games are worth a lot more than they really are. Square Enix is particularly guilty of this. On the other hand, EA doesn't seem to care about anything that is more than a year old.

[Silly gameAr]

10 bucks a month for unlimited access? Might as well be free. Only reason people are crapping on psnow is because they are trying to compare ea access with the service.

[Imalwaysright]

Even before EA access was announced, people were already crapping on PS now pricing.

[bleedsoe9mm]

120$ sounds high when we have EA access for 30$ a year and ps+ 50 a year for 72 games . add 30$ to plus and have two levels of plus 50$ without 80 with now

[polow got sol]

Ps now is a crappy service no doubt. Saying ea access is a ripoff at 5 dollars a month yet you charge 4 dollars for 4 hours wtf??

[PlayableGamez]

It's a good service, but terrible pricing.

[wynams]

if the price seems high then don't buy it ... but if you have an X1 bias make sure to bitch about it as well (as not buying it, not like you were considering anywho)

[jujubee88]

I want more people to complain to publishers and Sony before the sevice is finalized! This way people like me who have never owned a Playstation console can just buy a $99 Playstation TV or stream it from their Bravia TV for a really low price.

It's a win win situation, imo, that consumers make their voices heard over this service.

Giving Sony and game pubs/creators on PSNOW the business and telling them their service and games are something we want but at a lower rate is good!

[typittt69]

I tried it this morning and was very impressed with the tech. My connection was running the game seamlessly without any noticeable lag. But shocked with the prices. $4.99 for 4 hours? I hope they change their pricing model because i really like it.

[ThatOneRiggaNob]

I'm actually really interested to see how Sony fixes this pricing problem or if they will implement a monthly sub where you can play a certain amount of titles a month.

[Blackcanary]

If you don't like the prices instead saying stuff on N4G go on to the beta forums and till Sony on there. Is it really that hard to understand. That's the how point of a BETA test even if its a closed or a open BETA. Only way these prices will change if people give Sony feed back.

[Majin-vegeta]

Seems people dont know what google is.Was this so hard to do?
http://n4g.com/news/1558988...

[FrogSpork]

This is dumb. It could be so great, why are they charging so much?!

[y7jzdgy]

For once an article criticising Sony and with fair points. People if we don't complain now Sony will continue with this kind of pricing scheme and we all will suffer for it. Speak out now!!!

[fanboysmackdown]

Price gouging pure and simple. Only the fangirls will support this ripoff because to them Sony can do no wrong.

[Brooklynbully718]

I will never waste my money on this garbage PlayStation now

[sarshelyam]

I think it feels more like a company trying new things and enduring some growing pains along the way.

Considering how closely Sony has been listening to its development partners and fans alike (as it relates to the PS4 hardware in particular), it would be foolish to dismiss the fact that they're listening to the criticisms now. Furthermore, this is a BETA. To cry foul would be akin to condemning a game's BETA for not feeling complete, or not being reflective of the final product. The argument against it is incredibly short-sighted.

[ThatOneGuyThere]

I tried the service last night, after being highly skeptical from hearing all of this bashing. My experience:

I immediately saw a bunch of games that I wanted to play, that for one reason or another I never got around to playing. I rented Enslaved for 7 days. I think the price was 6.99. Which, is pretty much perfect pricing IMO. The streaming was fast, and really crisp. It felt like I was playing it on my PS3. I have a decent internet connection, wired. 45Mb/s. Anyways, I still hope for a subscription model, but honestly, 7 bucks for 7 days isnt bad. The larger rentals are stupid, however. Theres no reason to rent a title for more than a week, ever.

[Psychog]

What are you talking about ? It's always been highway robbery since day one BC should've been on these systems

[Harkins1721]

Not everyone wanted to pay another $100

[imt558]

Change the prices, Sony! Prices are hilarious!

[Harkins1721]

They announced on June 10th they plan to have a subscription. Take a chill pill people.

[stripe814]

why not Sony do any 10 games streaming in a month subscription

[Sweep14]

Once Again : PRICES OF PSNOW GAMES ARE SET BY THE PUBLISHERS and not by Sony...

[Izzy408]

In that case, this program was a fail from the start. The only way this will work is if PS Now becomes a monthly fee subscription service.

I wouldn't even pay $1 to play the majority of these games for 4 hours; let alone $2+. And yes, I'm well aware this is just a BETA, but lets no kid ourselves, don't expect much of a price drop when the full version comes out.

[Sweep14]

And that's exactly what they are working on : A PSNOW subscription service is comming

[Lucreto]

Just out of interest what were people expecting to pay for the service? More than likely you are paying for the bandwidth as well.

[Macdaddy71]

The price is the whole problem, or we would not be talking bout it unless there free, I'm not giving $1 a hour, just got to amazon n buy the game for same price n own it...

[intellegent]

Why the hell do people that own PS3s keep complaining about prices to rent PS3 games that they can buy for cheaper elsewhere? The point of PS Now is to stream games on devices that you wouldn't be able to play those games on. Don't have a PS3 but you have a supported Sony TV and you want to play MGS4? Well you can rent and stream it right on your TV and save yourself over $200 for a PS3. GET IT NOW?

[Maxor]

Yeah getting it now MIGHT make sense if it's $10 a month for unlimited access to the PS Now libary but at $8 for a seven day rental it is an idiotic pricing structure that appeals to no one. Should game streaming ever become a thing, Sony is poised to be crushed by bigger and more competent operators like Amazon, Steam, or even Nvidia.

[FayZ_]

so sony wanted to rob us with ps now rather than save us money with ea access...

[Sweep14]

PSNOW has nothing to do with EA Access

If you want to compare services, EA Access is to be compared with PS+

[Maxor]

Sony is robbing us with PS+ too compared to EA Access. Full retail games vs random indie games for the PS4? I would sign up, if I could.

[WeAreLegion]

The amount of misinformation you guys are spewing is almost unbearable. Did Google shut down or something?!? What is wrong with you people, lately?

[kenshiro100]

Do people REALLY think the prices are going to remain where they are without change? I don't agree with them either but COMMON SENSE tells me that Sony is most likely testing the market first, since it's a BETA.

[Manic2014]

The BETA is to test the service, meaning the Interface, Streaming bandwidth all the technical aspects, not the price, that should of been market research.

[kenshiro100]

Um...I did say market.

They have to test the market with the prices first before adjusting them. They would be idiots to ignore public outcry and not lower the prices in the first place.

That's bad business.

[CorruptBoyd]

Playstation now has been bad from the start. We wanted Ps1 and 2 classics. Ill pay 3$ for an old classic like medieval but let me beat the game instead of letting me play it for a couple hours only.

[Scatpants]

Make it work smoothly on Vita and give me a subscription plan or GTFO

[MonstaTruk]

Does anyone know how much it is to rent a game for 24hrs at a Redbox Kiosk? Why don't you guys find that out, compare that to PS Now, and come back here and tell us all again how the PS Now service is "highway robbery"...*smGDh*

[S2Killinit]

exactly. All these people either don't have a PS4, or are just jumping the sensation train. Although, i do feel that the 4 hour option is out of the question for me personally, i don't see why anyone would choose it either. but the other ones seem reasonable. (1 dollar less would be better thought)

[marloc_x]

..4 hour is out of the question..
.dollar less would be better..

Sensation train? Hardly..

[marloc_x]

Never bother with overpriced kiosks..

PS Now is highway robbery.

Smack that head WAY harder..

[Gatsu]

Sure we all know it is currently Beta, but honestly it doesn't require more than couple smart guys to come up with decent prices. Just because they are testing it, shouldn't be an excuse to put these insane prices. I mean who rents a game for 4 hours anyway, games are meant to be enjoyed and not speedrunned. I hope they change it soon :).
What I'm more interested in is how the service works otherwise and do the games work well, but as I don't live in North America, can't test it myself yet.

[hiawa23]

Sure glad all my PS3 games I have the disc copy or digital on my PS3 cause PS Now is not the answer to back compatibility. If it is something I missed last gen, I will just add it to my Gamefly Q

[WeAreLegion]

You can play all your digital PS3 games on PS Now through your PS4 or Vita (when the Vita version is available). You don't have to buy them again.

[The_Eternal_one]

Where did you get this info from?

[hiawa23]

That is cool, I am fine playing them on the PS3, no streamin

[S2Killinit]

only the 4 hour option is bad, the rest are reasonable. Although i was hoping they would drop the prices by a dollar all around. not sure if that is possible.

[Ryan741]

Second job Sony are back.

[quenomamen]

Cant get robbed if stay to the sidestreets, all console / gamemakers would love to get rid of discs and just have us rent games for the rest of our lives. Screw that.

[Papafynn]

"Feels Like"?! It is highway robbery.

[Dread]

All I know is that if MS came up with this PSnow thing, they would be getting murderd here at N4G. However, since it is Sony, then u get all of these excuses and justifications, because Sony apparently never does anything wrong. Double standards and hipocricy as always.

[Phish]

MS just started off on the wrong foot this generation. It will take gamers a long time to forgive that. I personally own all the consoles because I like them all. That being said, I think both EA Access and PS Now have a lot of improvements to make before I would consider either. It just shows the direction that gaming is heading.

[tommygunzII]

Where else are you going to get that burrito at 3am on the Interstate in the middle of nowhere?

[Codewow]

Seems like a $60 a year kind of thing for unlimited access would be better, but I bet publishers wouldn't like that.

[Phish]

I think if enough people joined they would be all over it. Compare the profits to what these older games pull in today and I think they would come out way ahead.

[The_Eternal_one]

This is exactly what I want because as of now I wouldn't spend any money the way it is. I spend $96 a year on Netflix and I can watch whatever I want when I want and the samething 100x if I want for 1 price. So if Sony did the samething I would be for it. Right now they have it setup like how video unlimited was and not like their music unlimited.

[Phish]

I don't expect them to make this full library free for the beta, but I think they should at least make a few games free so people can try out how the streaming works from their location. I agree completely with this article as well. The prices are absurd, and they need a monthly subscription ASAP or this will never take off.

[SirDjss]

The reason i only buy and play online games on my pc is because it is FREE. Every game on pc are free online , On ps4 u have to pay a fee if u want to play most of the games online. And they lure in the morons by "giving" free games that only works if u pay the monthly fee. robbery i say ROBBERY.

[Orionsangel]

The greedy Sony from the PS3 launch is again rearing it's ugly head!

[AudioEppa]

highway robbery?...
Lol fuck off with that over dramatic title

That's really all my opinion on this lame ass story.

[Rachel_Alucard]

So has anyone tried ps now on Wifi? The controls have mad delay on input and the resolution gets downgraded to 480p. Some of us don't have a choice in how are connection is

[CuddlyREDRUM]

Bring EA Access to PS4, Sony?

#4theplayers?

[gamer7804]

Actually announcing those high pices during beta is smart , now any reasonable pice if they drop the pice at launch will appear like a better deal

[InTheZoneAC]

I was browsing the ps now section of games. I saw they had Metal Gear Solid 4. This game was never released on the PS Store, but I wish they had since I've kept the physical copy. Most of my other games are on the HDD, it would be nice to add this one. It's the same with FFXIII and a couple others.

Wish every game, typically older ones, was available for download.

I'll never consider ps now, but majority of the short term prices looked good. It would be smart for them to apply the rental price towards the purchase if you wanted to keep the game.

One problem I see happening is that the price of some of these rentals will keep those games from ever being discounted on the ps store. You can't have rentals costing more than to own.

[rayzorn]

im hoping for a subscription plan.

i think one way they could do it and still make money is not limit the games you can play a month but how many hours a month you can play. maybe $20 a month for like 40 hours of game time.

[s45gr32]

no no make it like Netflix. I mean it costs $120 million or so to make movies games like 25 million. Despite of this games are more expensive go figure.

[SegaGamer]

I think a subscription plan for PS Now would be better but they probably feel they would lose out on a lot more money that way.

With the huge library of games i expect to see on PS Now they probably feel like a subscription price of say £30 would be too cheap.

Personally i would love them to go subscription, but they want money, just like all companies.

[s45gr32]

They want money yes but they need customers look at Netflix is charging $9.99 a month and what happened customers flock to it and created its own competition like Amazon video Hulu, etc. We give too much leeway to the video game corporations is time for us to say no.

[madmun]

The author states the following:
"Despite having an undeniably brilliant idea on their hands, allowing the millions of PlayStation 4 owners to rent titles digitally".

And that's where the author and many others have made a big mistake. Yes you will be able to play these games on the PS4, but it is primarily aimed at those who DON'T own a console.

Think of it this way. Jim owns a sony tv but no console, his mates are telling him how good GTA V is, but Jim doesn't want to spend $460 (console + game) to see what the fuss is about. But paying $7.99 to play for a week to see what the fuss is about? I reckon a lot of people might go for it.

Remember, this is only a beta and they have only opened it to the consoles during that time. Wait till it is available to devices other than consoles, because I think that is Sony's main thrust with PS now. I think it is blatantly obvious that PS Now is poor value for a console owner, particularly with the value of PS Plus. But for non console owners? I think it is a good idea.

[s45gr32]

Sorry I disagree is better for both consumer and corporation to charge $9.99 a month for all the PlayStation games stream on all devices. Like Netflix, consumers don't want to spend too much money on home entertainment anymore. That's why Netflix, Amazon video, and the like are destroying the satellite/ cable companies. Like this is pretty much dead in the water.

[madmun]

I wasn't talking about Netflix. I was highlighting the fact that the author was wrong to only mention PS4 owners when I believe Sony is targeting non console owners with PS Now.And considering that, I believe it may work.

Ofcourse it would be better at $9.99 a month, but I think they may still achieve a good result with the current model. We have to wait and see.

[s45gr32]

I pray that after the beta, Sony charges like Netflix $9.99 a month. For now is not worth paying ummmm what happened to video game testers. They seem to dissappear.

[worldwidegaming]

would have gladly paid $200 more for my ps4 to be backward compatible...
this would be great for hotels to have...

[bettergetdave]

I just couldn't disagree more with this article. Sure in "some" cases...less than half of the library you can buy the game used somewhere for near or the same price. The point you are missing out on is much of the world has no interest in doing that anymore and it is a growing trend. Movies and music disc sales are down through the floor from projections as to where they should be. People are streaming! Steam is thriving on PC gaming! Some people want the instant access now and don't want to have to wait for an amzazon / ebay game to be delivered. Or have to go out when the weather is bad to Gamestop or best buy and search for that obscure title.

Let me remind you of a little ole company called blockbuster with their all you can eat movie passes in the store and dvd's by mail. They offered the newest films not yet on netflix! The model failed and was beat by too many people just renting the movie they wanted to see with their cable provider or other online service!

Lastly the article fails to acknowledge that you don't need a console to play these games now and that is huge. Got a tv and a controller? You have access to PS Now! That is an incredible value that is going to introduce more gamers to the community!

[voltron420170]

Well, Sony is broke as the panhandler on the corner.. The PS brand might be making money but the rest of the company is in the hole over a BILLION dollars.. Why do you think that it's the indie console with a bunch of 'remastered' editions of games that came out last year? You all act like the PS4 is cutting edge tech... IT'S NOT neither is the competitor XBOX.. They are both trying to save cash and it's gonna hurt them. This console gen might, MIGHT last 3-4 years if they are lucky.. My guess is new hardware will come out no later than 2017...

[Petebloodyonion]

1) There's no way publisher would accept a netflix model
Why would publisher accept almost no revenue from this solution and risk losing sales on future game
Ex. Boby casual gamer invest in Netflix solution so he can play 125 games. Why would Boby purchase a new game if is gaming time is already filled by the Netflix solution?

2) Price are final. Publisher won't go losing money to make PSnow look good and Sony want's also to make a profit out of it. If you want to scream it's a Beta well Ea access to is a Beta. And you still insist well i would like to remind you that price usually go up after a Beta!

[Pocker]

In my opinion, Sony has been raping for about 5 years. So lets be honest here. Do Not Fuck Up Now. Do not let this PlaystationNow fail by releasing it with shitty prices. Release it with a subscription and I and 100k+ people will be on board. Don't do this microsoftesque 5$ per 4 hours bullshit and fuck over your fans. Lets do this right.

[BABY-JEDI]

PS Now seems only suited to a market that doesn't have a used game dealership. I'm guessing that this would only work in China. A completely untapped console market & a massive consumer/gamer base.
As for everyone else. Sony you can shove this now & get back to the drawing board.

[Solitaryswordsman]

Purely looking at it from an old games perspective in general publishers don't make money from the second hand games market on console due to lack of backwards compatibility and this service gives them a second bite at the cherry on games that they would not have made a penny on for years.
In some cases it may even prompt them to develop sequels if the play count is high
Publishers won't have included revenue from those games on their forecasts so I don't see that being the stumbling block, however sony made a massive investment and certain internet providers hate netflix so the last thing they want is another service taking up bandwidth.. Sony May be already having to consider baksheesh payments behind the scenes.

[P_Bomb]

Netflix of gaming or bust. Needs a subscription model. And kill the 4hr option. That's demo territory and demos should be free. Even plus offers free one hour trials.

[HumanatPlay]

Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Music Unlimited, Video Unlimited, PS+, Crunchyroll...Everywhere its BUY BUY BUY BUY BUY, less fucking BUY, More Play please!

[Maxor]

The difference here is that Netflix and Amazon have value. They are a gold standard and well worth the price.

[smashs]

Not good Sony

[cheno78]

With EA if i get 20 games a year for 30$ that is one hell of a deal. If more publishers did it ill sign up too...lets say i choose 3, UBISOFT, ACTIVISION, AND EA thats more than 100 games for 90$ a YEAR...do the math microsofts plan is BETTER...plus i get discounts and early access........ In case you were wondering ,90$ gets you almost 2 games at retail......XBOX ONE!!!

[tommygunzII]

All you get is a 10% discount on all EA games / DLC and 4-5 old EA games. Don't get your hopes up too high.

[tommygunzII]

This service will mostly benefit devices like the Vita, PlayStation TV and Bravia TV's that are compatible. The value isn't there for console owners yet.

[BillytheBarbarian]

If this was part of PS plus with an added fee, they would destroy Xbox. Nail in coffin. Dumb to separate it and makes Sony seem as out of touch as MS.

[sonyownsxbox]

I like psnow its awesome.

[alwayzbusi1]

Okay, here's what people need to understand. PS Now is not like renting a game in the form of redbox or gamefly. You are not running the game on your PS4 (it can't) so it's more like renting a game plus the console to run it on.

Think of it like back in the day when you could rent the actual console plus the game from Blockbuster. Also keep in mind that GameStop, Redbox, Gamefly, or any other store or service can't do anything for you if you don't have a PS3. That's the point of now and the main reason it should do well when it fully launches across PS family and TVs. With that taken into consideration, the pricing is not that bad but could still use some adjustments.

On the flip side of the coin. If you have a PS3 then PS Now may not be the best option for you. You could probably find the game cheaper elsewhere and also own it. But that's for you to determine on your own. But don't forget to factor in gas, and/or time taken to get that game. Also remember you're still renting their PS3 servers to play a rented game on your PS3 hardware that can do the same thing but locally and better.

[smellslikeralph]

As it is psnow is far to expensive I can just keep my ps3 and buy all these games at gamestop or craigslist and own them a lot cheaper

[TenBensons]

I agree with the whole article.