410°

Why the PlayStation Now 4-Hour Pricing is Actually a Good Deal

SonyRumors: PlayStation Now allows for 4-hour, 7-day, 30-day, and 90-day rentals that range in price but the 4-hour rentals, priced between $2.99 and $4.99, might be the real gem.

Read Full Story >>
sonyrumors.net
bebitech3548d ago

That's actually an interesting point

aceitman3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

I think its not bad , I dare anyone go to an arcade and tell me they didn't spend 5 dollars in 30 minutes , if u don't like that option then they have a better one that 5-15$ for 30 days , now are u going to complain about spending to little for what u got with 30 days , no so suck it up its an option and still in beta form . and some games can be beaten in 1-4 hrs anyway. they are for u to play for that time period , if u need more time u should have gotten the longer time period for a better price.

TFJWM3548d ago

I think the prices are a little high but the one thing people never talk about it is that you don't need a system for this. If you buy a new Sony TV or a PS TV you will be able to play these games with PS Now. I think that is the real market Sony is going for

KonsoruMasuta3548d ago

You do realize that arcade games are a different animal, right?

They are designed to take as much money from you as possible! When you end up comparing a rental service to an arcade, you know you are about to be severely ripped off.

DeadMansHand3548d ago

Agreed. I think the upper tier are even better. 30 days for 15 bucks. That's .50 a day. I can beat most so games in a week and that's because I rush knowing I have to get it back to redbox asap. With this, i have a month and the total cost is 15 bucks. If I buy a game that is a little old is usually 45 bucks or so. This works great for those titles I don't plan on buying day 1 but still want to check out.

BattleTorn3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

So basically you guys are saying - gamers, we already get far too much entertainment value (hours/$) out of our hobby, compared to other options.

We should stop being so greedy - we'll still get more bang for our buck than at the movie theatres.

Basically - shut up, we have it too good?

While we're at it - we've got far too many rights & freedoms - let's give some of those up too.

SilentNegotiator3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

Arcades are endangered for a reason, ya know.

But for $3 for 4 hours, there are lots of short games that I could complete for $3-6. I wouldn't touch ANY of the $5 for 4 hours games, though.

donthate3547d ago

This is so blatantly stupid logic. You know, a free game on android is what gazillion times better than any $60 game, because hey, you weren't out $60!

You compare apples to as close to an apple as possible. Example, you can buy a game for $15 or rent it for 4-hour access for $5. Does that sound a good deal to you?

In comparison, a movie I rent at RedBox cost me a $1 maybe $2 if it is super duper Blu-Ray, and the same movie bought new at release is $20. With RedBox I have a chance of finishing the movie quite comfortably, and with the game, I likely played a third!

Now of course PS Now has the convenience factor that might raise the price a little, but I don't see this as a good deal any way you swing it. At best it might be "fair" in SOME instances.

I wonder how many here will actually use this service regularly instead of just claiming it is a good deal?

troylazlow3547d ago

But you don't spend $400 to get into said arcade, nor do you need to have internet to. In my opinion 4 hours should only cost you $0.99 (the magic price for apple)

wampdog293547d ago

But, you didn't throw down money for the arcade hardware though did you???

GordonKnight3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

I only see it being a value for new releases on PS4. Also, what determines when your 4 hours are up? Is it 4 hours of gameplay time or just 4 hours from time of rental purchase?

I mean if I'm playing a rental game and than dinner is ready I'm not going to wait until the rental is over to eat. I would pause the game go eat and come back and finish playing.

Also, to compare it to going to the movies is not a fair comparison, because I don't have an iMax at my house.

It would work with a subscription service with 4 different tiers.

Lowest - Highest
PS1 games only $3.99 monthly
PS2 games only $4.99 monthly
PS3 games only $7.99 monthly *excluding crossgen PS4 games
PS1, PS2 & PS3 games $14.99 monthly.*excluding crossgen PS4 games

IMO

Sony I'm looking for a marketing job!

Chrischi19883547d ago

Still stupid pricing. But I didnt expect people to be angry about it, because Sony can do no wrong.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 3547d ago
lelo3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

Got to love these articles that try to convince people that PS Now's pricing is a wonderful deal. I'm sure they will convince some fools out there with a lot of money to spare. Fanboys will excuse anything.

The only way that I would even consider touching PS Now is if it was free access with PS+.

EDIT:
@Brien
The problem is that I only have a PS4, so I only get 2 games every month, and until now, PS4 offerings have been crap. Sony could offer 60 PS3/Vita games a month and it wouldn't help me one bit.... so yes, Sony should be offering me more with my PS4's PS+ account. Free access to PS Now would be a good idea.

Brien3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

Free with PlayStation Plus? That's just silly. So now, in addition to the free games you get every month (6 titles across three platforms, giving you 72 games to play with a year of Plus), you want to be able to play EVERY PlayStation Now game -- FOR FREE?

Tell me how that makes any kind of financial sense? Whatsoever?

EDIT: So because you don't happen to like the *free* games you're receiving on a console that's been out for less than a year, you're entitled to have a service of games you didn't bother to consider from last generation for free?

ICANPLAYGAMES23548d ago

@Brien - It wouldn't make financial sense to just add it to PS+ as is, but since they were considering a subscription option, creating a second PS+ tier that included it could make sense financially (though either way not sure how interested in it I would be).

TheBurger293548d ago

You seem to think that everything should be handed to you. Im an xbox 360 and I knew that paying for gold gave me a good service, my money would help the improve the service. When sony announced a similar service for the ps4 most people didnt get that upset because they understood that it was for the better. So you think that because you already pay for a service that deserve more free stuff, when you already get free games from ps plus? You are selfish, greedy, and lazy.

shinrock3548d ago

And why would you all want to play old ass ps1\2 on ur $400 1080p 60fps beast?

Reddzfoxx3548d ago

To your point of why shouldn't PS offer it for free... Your right through the whole life cycle of PS3 they gave away free online multiplayer. Now you have to pay to play.During the whole life people said Xbox gamers were stupid for paying to play online.

Now its okay to pay for PS+ and with Sony gouging people for more money for older games that you can get at gamestop for $10 or less by charging half that to play it for 4 hours.

@Brien Sony previously offered multiplayer services for free last gen and now your getting charged so yeah PSNow for free since you bought the console and are paying per month versus last gen. Sony apparently could afford it last gen and now they are BFing customers and making it more like a paystation 4 instead of a playstation 4.

Seriously ridiculous pay model which no reasonable person would defend. Sony is selling Ice cubes to eskimos with PSnow.

SilentNegotiator3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

"The only way that I would even consider touching PS Now is if it was free access with PS+"

LOL, Sony would be back to regular quarterly losses in no time.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 3547d ago
BiggerBoss3548d ago

I think $2-3 for a day would be the best way to go. That way it's the about the same price as a redbox rental

DeadMansHand3548d ago

It's cheaper than that. The "tester" 4 hour rental is 4-5 bucks. A 30 day rent is fifty cents a day and the 90 is .25 a day.

BABYLEG3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

lol @ DMH. This fool here tryna defend this shit. Since you like doing math, do this one. Why don't I just download and buy the game and keep it for around the same price and build a library? 30bucks 2 years +... do the math

Something about playing any game when I want it, without being limited. This is arcade styled pricing for the home. I usually don't test games.. by watching a clip of said game, I know if I want it or not. If not, hopefully it changes my mind.

I don't need a 4 hour rental to tell me that I shouldn't waste my time with watch dogs or other mistake games out there.

If people enjoy testing games then yea.. test away. Sony gon have some people renting skyrim for 4 hours lol

admiralvic3548d ago

I couldn't disagree more. I don't normally like to use popular lingo, but this article feels exactly like I imagine an "apologist" post / article to look like. For starters, the starting price is actually pretty terrible. Even if we were to assume $2.99 is the lowest for all 4 hour rentals, I am 99.99% sure Family Video charges the same for a 1 night rental. Since they go off nights, you technically have 2 days to play the game and you can enjoy it from opening (10 AM) to closing the next day (Midnight), giving you up to 38 hours to enjoy the game for the same price.

If you don't object to simply selling games, you can also make a fair bit back to offset the cost, especially if you have Gamer Club Unlocked. Like you could get any $60 dollar game for $48 on release and this stacks with reward zone gift certs with preorders and games typically trade in for $30 ~ $40 within the first couple of weeks. Like you could have had 3 - 4 weeks with Mario Kart 8 and got a free copy game and or sold that code for $10+ for $4 via this method (if you waited 6 or so weeks, it traded into Walmart for $59.xx). There have been many instances where I've actually got a fair bit of cash back by simply waiting / doing a promotion to get close to the same $3 ~ $5 dollar price point. Back in May Target had 3x trade in on a bunch of games and several things like AC 4 (PS4), Battlefield 4 (PS4), Super Mario 3D World and such were still trading in for $50+ dollars (thats approximately a rental price of $ 1.67 or less a month).

Don't get me wrong, I am all for people having options and if someone wants a rent something for 4 hours, then so be it, but It's hard to call it a deal in any capacity.

wsoutlaw873548d ago

Who cares that you can rent games at other places. They arent the ssme thing as red box or any other rental place. Its a streeming service. How cheap do you expect publishers will make it for you to finish their games. Everyone needs to stop expecing red box prices. Have you every rented a movie that was streamed? It cost a lot more than red box. Psnow allows you to play these games instantly that are made for a system you maybe dont even have. Being able to fully play a game for 4 hours for 4 dollars is a fine price and if you couldnt finish it in that time then do it again. You could beat most games for less than 8$. You would also not have to worry about the game being crap that way because you only spent 4$. Plus some of the games are digital only or would be impossible to find at a rental place or store. Are stores like family video even open still?

admiralvic3548d ago

"Who cares that you can rent games at other places. They arent the ssme thing as red box or any other rental place. Its a streeming service."

To do well in any field you need to remain competitive regardless of how innovating / unique your product is. For PS Now to be successful, it needs to offer more than convenience, since innovation is great, but there is no motivation if better deals can be had elsewhere.

"How cheap do you expect publishers will make it for you to finish their games."

I think you miss the point of Now. There is a marketing term, which I can't recall or find via Google, but thats what Now is going for. The point is to have a high introductory cost that makes the other more expensive and longer times seem like a better deal than they probably are. This point starts to become obvious when you compare the price of 4 hour rentals to 7 day rentals. To give you an idea, Darksiders II is $4.99 for 4 hours and $6.99 for 7 days. Needless to say, you're basically paying another $2 for an additional 164 hours of access.

"Have you every rented a movie that was streamed? It cost a lot more than red box."

While it might sound hypocritical, this is really an apple / oranges statement. When it comes to things like movies, you only need the movies run time to get the "maximum" amount of enjoyment out of it, so the length of time you have it isn't that important, where as with games you're probably not going to finish it in 4 hours and the extra time is essentially value lost.

"Psnow allows you to play these games instantly that are made for a system you maybe dont even have. Being able to fully play a game for 4 hours for 4 dollars is a fine price and if you couldnt finish it in that time then do it again."

This is where the logic of the 4-hour time frame falls apart. In many (perhaps most / almost every) cases it costs more to pay for two 4 hour rentals than to fork over the money to have it for a week. This is also something done by design (as mentioned above) and essentially why I don't think the 4-hour pricing is a good deal. Now if Sony wanted to bump it up to 1 day, I could see it being viable next to say red box or another rental service, even if they still technically offer a better deal.

"You could beat most games for less than 8$. You would also not have to worry about the game being crap that way because you only spent 4$."

The problem relates back to the pricing structure in the first place. Since it's in most cases as much or less to rent the game for a week, the two 4-hour trials could be a waste of money and essentially puts a time limit on your enjoyment. Considering most games average 7+ hours to complete, you're going to have to ignore exploring areas / looking for things / going after trophies and focus completely on beating the game or you're going to waste more and more money on these low time rentals.

"Plus some of the games are digital only or would be impossible to find at a rental place or store."

True, but digital games have a lower threshold between 4-hour and 7 day. Something like Lumines goes from $2.99 for 4 or $3.99 for 7 and since this article is about 4-hour pricing being a good deal, you're going to be hard pressed explaining to me how saving a dollar for 164 less hours of time is some kind of deal. Furthermore, digital games tend to lean towards longer spans of time that arguably make them a worse deal. Like Metal Slug 2 only comes in 90 day form and it costs as much as it costs to buy the game for the PS3 off the PSN.

"Are stores like family video even open still?"

Yes. There are at least 4 Family Video stores still in operation by my house.

XxExacutionerxX3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

Headline
EA is charging 4.99 for 3 full games on Xbox One a month!!!

Sony Fanboys
OMG "EA and Microsoft are the worst companies on the planet" Sony was right turning them down, what a dumb idea. Glad i have a Ps4!! I fill sorry for the Xboners. The Ps4 is so much better...

Headline
Sony is charging people 2.99 for 4 hours of gameplay for a game on PSNOW.

Sony Fanboys
"That's a great idea, WOW It's just like the arcade, I can play Metal Gear Solid 4 for 4 whole hours...JUST LIKE THE ARCADE! !!
Sony I Love You, let me know when you need more money. I'll ask my mom.

Welcome to N4G

shinrock3548d ago

OMFG! THANK YOU FOR THAT! BUBS UP 4 YOU !

liquidhalos3547d ago

I'll bub that too. Sony fanboys just make so sense at all. I'm still ashamed to have a ps4 with kids that act like this

user56695103547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

To be fare it's only a few defending this. It's hard to argue that this is not a ripoff. It usually a excuse like the prices are not final or some other bs. Not defending them because I always point out their contradictions but this one most of them is on the same page as us finally.

You are still getting some of the Sony gymnastics specialist in here.

Pogmathoin3548d ago

Bollox.... now you saying PS has the Wii crowd? Lets entertain for an hour and thats it??? This pricing is still terrible. You champion this and slaugther EA Access??? Get a grip. Sony has done great things lately, but not everything they do turns to gold.........

SonyPS43548d ago

It's cheaper to buy a used PS3 and the games than using PS Now. This service is a joke, even worse than the old OnLive's pricing structure and many thought that was offensively abysmal. It's going to flop if nothing gets done about it.

liquidhalos3547d ago

It's a ridiculous idea and comparison. Arcade isn't console.

alwayzbusi13547d ago

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.

maximaz3547d ago

Yes, Imax is $20 for like two hours and a plane trip is like a couple of hundred for two hours, hence, therefore, ergo, $5 for 4 hours is amazing. On the other hand, you can buy a game on Steam for $5 so...

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 3547d ago
DonDon3548d ago

Sorry but still not convinced. Why not just make it 4 hours in actual gameplay. Don't dock the hours that we spend when NOT playing.

Playstatiin NOW should charge the hours spent on a gam3 (the here and NOW). It's called PS Now not PS Not. If they want that much for 4 hours I think this could be best way. The other prices are decent as is (even if time is lost when not playing). But either way it's better to own. PS Now as a service is too expensive for Sony to run 24/7 so ownership isn't likely for games. It's quite the quagmire when running a streaming service.

LAWSON723548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

That ideal works only for 4 hr rentals. Letting someone rent a game for 2160 hrs of in game time is literallly just giving them the game. They should at least not start counting time until the game is played like a movie rental, which may already be the case but I have no idea.

To give an example I have 800+ hrs in Halo Reach after playing it moderately for 3 years. Someone could be beat a 10 hr game 216 times lol before their so called rental is over. Heck even with a 7 day rental someone could play a for 168 hrs. Someone could go beat Uncharted probably 15 times before the rental is over

DonDon3547d ago

At Lawson:

Hey genius I originally said the 4 hour thing is best ONLY for 4 hours if we're only clocked while playing. I said in my original post that the other options (1 week, 90 days etc) would not be feasible unless they DID dock the hours when we are not playing.

XtraTrstrL3548d ago

Not convinced either. The 4 hour option is what makes it seem the most like a rip-off to me. Almost any price you ask for that option will seem too much, and the prices there now definitely aren't low for only 4 hours.

admiralvic3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

"The 4 hour option is what makes it seem the most like a rip-off to me. Almost any price you ask for that option will seem too much, and the prices there now definitely aren't low for only 4 hours."

Thats sort of the point. The idea is to make the other times look like a great value by comparison. I assume the main reason why Sony doesn't do a day instead of 4-hours is that many people could actually get their fill / beat it in a 24 hour window and it would actually make the cheapest time a competitive option for the 7 day option, instead of a no brainer like "do I want Catherine for over 4 hours?" as most people probably realize it's going to take over 4-hours to beat and thus it would be far more logical to just pay for the week (which costs the same as two 4-day rentals).

Drithe3548d ago

2, 3, 4 hours of gaming used to be called DEMOS. Sony is stealing from gamers and getting greedy. It almost killed the PS3. Now they are gonna take a chance and be greedy with the ps4 because it is selling well.

I am starting to hate Sony.

kingdip903548d ago

Demo's used to only be around 15-20 mins of gameplay

liquidhalos3547d ago

Lol no way Bro. Back in my pc gaming days demos could keep a group of us going for hours. Duke 3d, mech warrior 2, descent. We had hours and hours and hours of fun.

youndamie3548d ago

You're staring to hate Sony because their Optional streaming service is too expensive? The publishers would not agree to anything significantly cheaper across the board. Sony can't make their games much cheaper either without alienating the other publishers games. Also you have to consider the fact that they have to maintain this streaming network, the cost of operation is also a factor in setting price points.

shinrock3548d ago (Edited 3548d ago )

What about sony exclusives? According to that means sony games should be cheaper.

youndamie3548d ago

@shinrock Reread my comment, I have already addressed that.

aceitman3548d ago

@ drithe , I dare u to find a demo that is 2,3,4 hrs long , the last I saw time trials are an hour , and even Nintendo has a limit on how many times u can try a demo. u will spend 5 $ easy in 30 minutes in the arcade , some games only last 3 to 5 hrs

liquidhalos3547d ago

So when your at this arcade playing games. You pay not only for the game but also staff, ablutions, electricity and insurance. Amongst other things. You cannot compare the 2. Sony messed up, this was a bad idea with these price plans. Just think how many Sony fans are on n4g, now look at how many people are complaining about price point. Look at their agrees. People against now pricing are in the majority. There's no getting around it

MegaRay3548d ago

"It almost killed the PS3. Now they are gonna take a chance and be greedy with the ps4 because it is selling well"

PSNow only play PS3 games, so they're still killing PS3 (By your logic anyway lol)

Drithe3548d ago

They almost killed the ps3 with their GREED. By that I mean the 600 ridiculously stupid price tag when it first came out. It took years for the ps3 to catch on, and that was only after it came down in price.

Sony knew what they could away with then and are testing the waters now.

yewles13547d ago

@Drithe

"They almost killed the ps3 with their GREED. By that I mean the 600 ridiculously stupid price tag when it first came out."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/new...

Imalwaysright3547d ago (Edited 3547d ago )

It wasn't greed. The PS3 was a trojan horse for them to win the optical disc format war against HD DVD. When it launched the PS3 was the least expensive Blu ray player on the market. Having said that I completely agree with you on PS3 price. It was stupid and it cost them half the market share they had on the previous generation.

OT

PS Now pricing is a sneak peak of the future, and it will be even worse if turning games into services becomes the norm. I'll never support anything that turns games into services.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 3547d ago
DaleCooper3548d ago

I think this article forgot to be tagged as "satire", right? There is no way the 4 hour rental can be seen as a good deal.

Software_Lover3548d ago

How in the hell can people justify this lol?

Gr1mmyshadows3548d ago

Because it's Sony and apparently Sony can't do no wrong

Vegamyster3548d ago

I don't know, before video rental stores were phased out you could rent most game for $5-$7 and get 2-5 days with it.

Darkstares3548d ago

You can't really. PS+ gave us playtime included on some titles. I think they were 60 minutes to 120 minutes? This pricing model might not be bad for NEW games but not old ones. It's terrible. The 7 day rental options aren't bad.

I've said it before, they need to make it a subscription based model like Onlive was.

Show all comments (138)
210°

PlayStation beat Xbox cloud gaming users in 2021, new CMA data indicates

PlayStation dominated cloud gaming users throughout 2021, beating Microsoft's xCloud streaming by over 10%, but Xbox swings back at PlayStation in 2022.

Read Full Story >>
tweaktown.com
Nanukas434d ago

Good, i want sony to feel heat. Ordinary people win from good competition.

BehindTheRows434d ago

“Good competition” is not something Microsoft offers often. You should want THEM to feel enough heat to actually do better.

Nanukas434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

Agree. I wish sony would be more afraid of gamepass to get better games on ps+

Obscure_Observer434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

"You should want THEM to feel enough heat to actually do better."

Phil Spencer started to acquire studios back in 2018, after that, Xbox Studios only had 5 studios. Now Xbox has 23 almost 5x more studios. Not to mention third party exclusives like Flight Simulator, Contraband and Project Dragon.

Plus, unlike Sony, Xbox Studios won´t be distracted with things like VR, all of their first party efforts goes towards Xbox first and foremost.

Sony so can expect a much more robust Gamepass in terms of first party and third party exclusives games from Xbox from now on.

Since Sony have less studios and won´t release their games day one on PS+, they better make sure andl deliver high quality games like Ragnarok. Because so far, 2023 hadn´t started well for them with Forspoken.

https://www.videogameschron...

Sony spent millions to secure a AAA third party exclusive game build from the ground up for PS5, not to mention more millions spent on market to be outperformed by a AA game which costs less than half on Steam, had an EPIC day one surprise announcement AND release with ZERO money invested on promotion and marketing.

If that´s not good competition, I don´t know what it is.

BehindTheRows434d ago

@Obscure_Observer

It isn’t.

Obscure_Observer434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

"It isn’t."

Oh yes, it is. You can bet your life that both companies cares about their money and investments.

The simple fact that Sony continues to pay multiple publishers to keep games out of Xbox forever, is nothing but a reaction to Gamepass.

Imo, Sony now fears that once their timed-exclusive contracts ends, those games will be available on Gamepass the moment the said games hits the Xbox platforms.

Sony fears the scenario where gamers realize that it´s not worth to invest in every single game released on Playstation at full $70 once they´ll be getting it for "free" on Gamepass eventually, just like Yakuza, Dragon Quest, Octopath Traveler, Nino Kuni, Persona series and more.

ARK 2 (exclusive on Xbox consoles), S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2( exclusive on Xbox consoles), Flintlock, Wo Long, Atomic Hears, Lies of P, Eiyuden Chronicle, Hollow Knight: Silksong. Minecraft: Legends, MLB 23...

Those are just some of the games that Xbox players will be getting for "free" day one while Playstation gamers will have to pay for all of it.

So at least you´re rich or something, Xbox players will be getting way more NEW games to play than you. That´s just facts.

BehindTheRows434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

@Obscure_Observer

I can bet that one company brings actual competition, isn’t afraid to share losing numbers, and doesn’t buy huge publishers due to said weaknesses. That’s what I can bet.

As a fan of theirs, you should want them to do better and offer more than subscriptions services and unfulfilled promises.

tay8701434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

@obscure. Well Sony can't control 3rd party games quality, but their 1st party certainly trounces MS's. Spiderman 2 is going to a absolutely dominate the holiday season, just like ragnarok did this past holiday season. Sony easily has the best gaming studios out of the big three. It's.not Sony who has to worry about their 1st part output, it is MS.

MIDGETonSTILTS17434d ago

@Obscure: what AAA games would I buy an XsX today to play?

I own a ps5 and XsX, and I don’t know of one game that would have motivated me to buy an XsX ( I bought it to appease my dumb Xbot friends).

I bought a ps5 for Demon Souls (best looking game on consoles), Returnal (top 10 game of all time for me), and Dualsense upgrades for shooters (completely changes R6 for me).

So, can you illustrate how XsX is competing? I liked HiFi Rush a lot, High on Life too, but neither make we happy about the $500 I sunk into the hardware to play them.

Mr_cheese434d ago

Obscurer, you're saying an awful lot without talking much sense at all.

VR isn't a distraction, neither does it take games away from playstation. Sony have been building and harnessing studios just for this while working on their 1st party none VR titles.

Microsoft is fully committed to gamepass and that's fine for them and those that like to game that way. It will be an even better product if Microsoft can nail their 1st party games.

What I'd hate to see are more moves like the Activision and Bethesda purchases and attempts because it destroys the gaming ecosystem. I'd say the same for Sony as well because once the ball is rolling, they'll all start buying and diving gaming.

Obscure_Observer434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

"I can bet that one company brings actual competition, isn’t afraid to share losing numbers, and doesn’t buy huge publishers due to said weaknesses. That’s what I can bet."

Unfortunately for you, MS or Nintendo aren´t forced to play by yours or Sony´s rules. Fyi, Sony used to buy publishers back in the day. The only reason they aren´t doing it now is simply because they can´t.

As it is, Sony already owns 14.09% of Kadokawa´s shares while Tencent acquired 16% of the company's shares, which means 1/3 of the entire company ownership.

The only reason why Tencent owns more than Sony is because Sony couldn´t pay more for it. So spare me from this "victim complex" bs defense for Sony.

Phil acted as the "nice guy" for too long. To the point where stupid fanboys were all happy when Xbox acquired new studios and publishers, because the idiots were under the illusion that all future Xbox games would become multiplatform and be released on Playstation.

Yeah, they were stupid to the point of thinking that MS would turn into a third party developer for Playstation.

Reality hits hard and here we are. Now that they KNOW those games aren´t coming to Playstation, all that they can do now is cry and moan over games paid and developed by Microsoft to not be on their platform of choice.

They think they´re entitled to have anything and everything otherwise it´s not good competition.

Phil Spencer won´t stop. Be the Activision/Blizzard deal approved or not, he can just go after a single studio like CDPR for example and you´ll be here crying all the same.

I don´t care if Sony or Nintendo buys SquareEnix, From Software or even SEGA tomorrow. Because I have no problem buying products from those companies if they have the games I want. I care about games first and foremost. So don´t expect me to be on your sad place complaining about big a$$ companies running their business as they see fit.

Lightning77434d ago

"You should want THEM to feel enough heat to actually do better."

But when they do attempt to do better ppl complain about it.

BehindTheRows434d ago

@Lightning77

What genuine attempts have people complained about?

Lightning77432d ago

With the whole Bethesda thing. There was article on here not too long ago talking about how Bethesda investment will pay off for MS. The whole comment section everyone was whining about how MS was taking games away. So when MS competes everyone here complains on here. No matter what MS hurts feelings. It's quite funny actually.

BehindTheRows432d ago

@Lightning77

In other words, outside of publisher acquisitions, they have not really attempted to compete.

And "whining" happens on both sides, so I hope you are just as entertained when people bitch and moan about moves Sony makes.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 432d ago
Crows90434d ago

Ps+ extra already has better games than gamepass. Just look at the highest scoring games...ps extra has more of them.

Obscure_Observer434d ago

Lol. What a joke.

PS+ relies on old games. Gamepass not only has day one first party games but also day one third party as well. Even from Sony. XD

S2Killinit434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

Exactly. “Day one” is a buzz word that makes these guys think they have a better line up but it has not amounted to much. If you look at what they have at any given time on their service its not that rosy. Not to mention “day one” also exists on PS plus just not for the first party AAA story games (which is fine w me as long as they continue making the hits).

Check out their list of day one releases for all the years they had gamepass. Its a joke.

Crows90434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

@obscure

I'd take good old games then new Bad games. Besides that wasn't his point and that has nothing to do with what I claimed. The op said that they should offer better games but they already offer better games. He did not say new games. Or even New Quality games. But to your point, I know that game pass lovers do enjoy their day one bad or mediocre games. It's all about value with you guys and not quality

GamingSinceForever434d ago

Some are going ape shit over Hi-Fi Rush but completely forgot about the Tokyo Wire dud the same developer last released. My point being there are hits and misses.

434d ago
434d ago
Obscure_Observer434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

" It's all about value with you guys and not quality"

Lol. Your false narrative didn´t aged well.

All Metacritic scores for day one first party games
.
Ori and the Will of the Wisps 92 on Metacritic
Flight Simulator 90 on Metacritic
Forza Horizon 5 92 on Metacritic
Halo Infinite 87 on Metacritic
Grounded 85 on Metacritic
Pentiment 87 on Metacritic
Age of Empires II: Definitive Edition 87 on Metacritic
Hi-Fi Rush 88 on Metacritic

And that´s only from first party games/IPs on Xbox series consoles.

So much for your "quality vs quantity" BS narrative.

Oh, and we "Gamepass Lovers" also love old quality games as well. I also can give you a large list of high quality third party on Gamepass. Just ask. ;)

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 434d ago
GamingSinceForever434d ago

@Obscure_Observer… Forspoken was not a 1st party game from Sony nor should it be treated as such. Square Enix will comeback nicely with FFXVI I’m sure.

Besides Sony is entitled to some misses here and there because they actually take chances on new titles and release them regularly.

Bu the time Spiderman 2 releases everyone will have forgotten all about this terrible start you’re claiming.

Crows90434d ago

They're so anxious to try to nail Sony on something that they'll even bring up third party developers not under Sony. Oh look this time's exclusive that wasn't developed by a Sony studio was bad so Sony doesn't know how to do good games.

434d ago
Obscure_Observer434d ago

"@Obscure_Observer… Forspoken was not a 1st party game from Sony nor should it be treated as such. Square Enix will comeback nicely with FFXVI I’m sure."

In no moment I said it´s a first party game. Both Forspoken and FFXVI are exclusive Playstation 5 games which Sony invested large sums of money to secure to their platform. Just like the original Spiderman from Insomniac. (which till this day Sony fans treat it like a first party/IP)

So it´s pretty obvious if the game fails, Sony also fails and loses tons of money which could had been invested on first party games.

"Besides Sony is entitled to some misses here and there because they actually take chances on new titles and release them regularly."

True.

"Bu the time Spiderman 2 releases everyone will have forgotten all about this terrible start you’re claiming."

Also true. The same can be said about FFXVI, imo.

Abear21434d ago

The leader, Nintendo, doesn’t care what the competition does.

Obscure_Observer434d ago

"The leader, Nintendo, doesn’t care what the competition does."

Couldn´t agree more

BehindTheRows434d ago

The Switch is leading the PS5 because it launched three years prior. PS4 won last gen is all forms (money made, units sold, software totals).

No hate for Nintendo though, as they are another company who actually puts out quality games in high numbers, but just a little perspective.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 432d ago
Orchard434d ago

“In 2022, Microsoft took the lead with 60-70% of total MAUs”

From 20-30% up to 60-70%? That’s some crazy growth. Probably thanks to Fortnite.

SurgicalMenace434d ago

That's what's up, young fella. You feel better now?

The Wood434d ago

All the other stats dont matter. Especially the ones where ps is tearing xbox a new one

434d ago
Obscure_Observer434d ago

“In 2022, Microsoft took the lead with 60-70% of total MAUs”

Probably one of reasons why Sony won´t return Activision´s calls.

BehindTheRows434d ago

Oh, yeah, THAT must be it….

Outside_ofthe_Box434d ago

You're not asking for numbers now, I noticed? 🤣

Orchard434d ago (Edited 434d ago )

Oops, somebody didn't read the article.

This isn't a "YoY increase". It's market share, so we know they had 60-70% of the streaming market.

MIDGETonSTILTS17434d ago

That’s why we game: to celebrate YoY growth!

Three cheers for first-party content-starving fueling third party max’s and subscriptions.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 434d ago
Tacoboto434d ago

What a clickbait headline. Why mention 2021, when the tides turned in 2022 for the obvious reason of one company making the Cloud service one of their biggest marketing pushes throughout the entire year while the other company was able to promote the games they had coming out?

And it's imprudent to suggest crazy growth when we only know proportions - did Xbox grow its proportion by attracting from the competitors' bases, did their marketing pay off and attract new users, or did cloud gamers on competitors just not play as much? The MAU figures don't point to shifts as significant as the Cloud proportions do, and Microsoft's lack of raw subscriber numbers that they happily boasted about in 2021 is telling too.

320°

56 Games to Leave PS Now in May Including Metal Gear Solid 4

The PlayStation Brahs:

"Playstation Now will soon cease as exist as it combines with PlayStation Plus to be one super subscription, titles that won't carryover to the PlayStation Plus revamp will begin to leave the service in May."

Read Full Story >>
theplaystationbrahs.com
Orchard723d ago

Wait, what? I thought PS+ premium would carry over the games from PSNow?

Also this basically leaves MGS4 dead in the boneyard unless you play via RPCS3…

TGGJustin723d ago

That was never going to be the case. Sony said that Premium would have 340 PS3, PS2, and PS1 games. There are like 400 PS3 games alone on PS Now right now so it was obvious some of them weren't going to carry over.

darthv72723d ago

If they are just combining forces... there is no reason why any games would leave. Unless they were already planning on removing them regardless of the merge (licensing issues).

Orchard723d ago

MGS could be licensing I guess - isn’t the HD collection still unavailable / in licensing hell?

I’d like to think Konami are yanking everything MGS because they’re about to announce a 1-5 collection but… we know Konami better than that.

TGGJustin723d ago (Edited 723d ago )

I forgot to include PSP in my comment. So yeah you can see that when Sony says there will be 340 PS3, PS2, PS1, and PSP games while there are currently 400 PS3 games on PS Now that a good chunk of those current PS3 games are going away. They aren't just rolling them all onto the new PS+ otherwise the number would be much higher than 340

Orchard722d ago

Yeah I guess I just never really did the math on the numbers they announced so this caught me off guard.

Eonjay722d ago

PSnow is a platform and it will not exist after next month. Them being on one service doesn't automatically mean that they will be on another service. Contracts are drawn up and compensation may include things like per player reimbursement. Therefore you shouldn't automatically expect a game to go from one platform to another.... if Sony can strike a deal with Konami then the game will come to plus (if it already hasn't been decided).

But to be clear all PSNow games are leaving the service because the service will cease to exist.

JackBNimble720d ago

400 ps3 games that you have " no Choice" but to stream, doesn't make me want to upgrade ps+ . As it is , if you keep the basic ps+ you're going to lose1of the 3 games a month to begin with.

Nothing here for the new upcoming service seems like a worthwhile subscription.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 720d ago
ApocalypseShadow722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

Or, you know, you could play it on an actual PS3.

If you don't have one there's almost 90 million systems to track down, cop one and do that.

Here's the game too
https://www.ebay.com/itm/40...

Orchard722d ago

Is that you Don Mattrick?

The ideal solution would be a proper back compat implementation.

I shouldn’t have to crack out my 16 year old console to play a legendary game like MGS.

Also MGS was basically a PS franchise yet somehow it’s now basically an Xbox franchise if you want to play it nowadays.

Hopefully the new “preservation” team at Sony tackle this problem.

mkis007722d ago

Orchard

4 isnt on xbox. Incomplete series on xbox. Pc you would need now.

Orchard722d ago

@mkis The PC is always the place where you can get everything thanks to emulators etc.

But still, XSX and XB1 plays substantially more metal gear games than any other recent console, so my statement stands true.

King_Noctis722d ago

Or you know, you could play it on the console that you ACTUALLY HAVE without having to resort to ebay to buy a a console from two gen ago with scalper’s price.

itsmebryan722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

I have a OG PS3 (big boy) just gathering dust. I think it even plays PS2 games. I guess I'll put it on eBay.

thornintheside722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

so basically throw money at the problem.

sure it works, as long as not everyone is doing it. Is it ideal?....maybe for the sellers

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 722d ago
ApocalypseShadow722d ago

Oh. So orchard can lie and say that the only way to play the game is through an emulator. Which is false.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/13...
Here's a console for $50 and 7 games. Buy MGS4 above and that's 55 bucks before shipping. Can play it forever.

Orchard722d ago

“Also this basically leaves MGS4 dead in the boneyard unless you play via RPCS3…”

Looks like what I wrote is accurate if your only alternative is to go on eBay and buy a console from 3 generations ago which is no longer manufactured.

Thanks for reinforcing my point.

TravsVoid722d ago

I agree you should buy a PS3 if you are really interested in it's games but don't come on here linking to a eBay auction that has a price that will definitely increase before it ends and act like that is what they sell for. More accurate prices seem to be around $100.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i....

Only reason I want PS3 emulation on PS5 is because a lot of the original games aren't even 1080p, some even sub 720p and we could see these games up to 4k and smoother framerates on PS5.

Z501722d ago

He forgets. Some of us still have PS3's. So, RPCS3 is NOT the only way.

SonyStyled722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

Orchard, PSNow has 800+ games. PS+ Premium was announced for 700+ games. Some games were expected to be removed as one service cancelled and combined for another, and now we know which ones. What are you so surprised about, or did you not know PS+ Premium was loosing 100 games from PSNow while simultaneously being compared to a Gamepass competitor?
And yes actually, a lot of lifetime PS gamers have a PS3. I have one in my living room with the rest of my consoles and one in my bedroom. They aren’t like ancient record players today like their competing consoles. The PS3 came with features we expect today in a new device that were very premium for 2006 hardware. I can use my PS3 as a blu-ray player in 2022. I can’t with my 360 since 2005. I can also put MGS4 in my PS3 in 2022, or any of my 220+ on the game shelf.

I think you’re scaling PS gamers abandoning their prior consoles at the rate Xbox gamers did with the 360 and One. If you are a gamer and enjoy PS, chances are you don’t have to ‘crack’ out a 16 year old device and suffocate on the floor in a web of cords around your neck wishing we were loyal to Phil Spencer to swoop in like Superman to save us from imminent death

722d ago
outsider1624722d ago

I sure hope MGS4 comes to PS pass or whatever. It's the one game i want to replay. Man i loved that game.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 720d ago
Petebloodyonion722d ago

It's actually a lot of games that will leave at the same time.
Probably to leave some space for the PSP games that are gonna be added to the premium service.
As for MGS4, I would expect Konami to be behind the move.

TheColbertinator722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

Unfortunate that MGS4 is leaving regardless. Played it with PSNow on PC and enjoyed having one of my favorite PS3 games to play again.

TravsVoid722d ago

It's going to suck if these PSP and PS2 games they are referencing are the few already released on PS4 store which were included with PS Now.

Cackocacho722d ago

Ah, yes. Bask in the "service" era. Where what you see today, is not what you'll see tomorrow, thanks to an overcomplicated system.

The "service", is simply, off the charts.

gangsta_red722d ago

Complicated how?

Also, you can always buy the game. Just like other services that offer third party content, they are on their for a limited time or however long the contract holds.

BrainSyphoned722d ago

Well, yes, when I subscribe to a service I hope to have different games cycle through. PS Now gives you a time frame to finish the games you want to try and Xbox is generally a year for most titles. They both give warning when titles are leaving. There are multiple web pages dedicated to each service if you need help figuring out which carton of milk needs finished first.

TravsVoid722d ago

Big difference between PS Now games leaving that are only available for streaming and games you can purchase even if they leave the service. Every game on Game Pass you can purchase without a subscription unlike PS Now.

thornintheside722d ago (Edited 722d ago )

im not really sure how the complexity of the PS3 architecture, and the "service" era are related. They seem like two completely separate entities with no interaction worthy of mentioning. Maybe you meant it as a problem that can exists in both entities.

Vengeance1138722d ago

So when games leave PS Now, it's a huge issue but when games leave GamePass it's just fine? All subscription services have games / movies leave all the time.

Vengeance1138722d ago

Everyone whining and crying in this comment section?

TravsVoid722d ago

You can still purchase every single Game Pass game regardless of if it's on the service. If a PS3 game leaves PS Now it's gone for good, do you understand the difference?

Bathyj722d ago

I do.
You're saying owning a game is better than renting it. I agree.

King_Noctis722d ago

I think it is the other way around.

GoodGuy09722d ago

This is why I dislike subscriptions lol.

Show all comments (47)
450°

This PlayStation Now 12-Mos. Sub Link Is Still Live at $59,99, and Nets a Huge PS Premium Discount

Get PS Plus Premium at half off the price by subscribing to PS Now for 12 months! Sony has pulled the annual offer on PSN, but here are live links offering it for US and UK.

Extermin8or3_746d ago (Edited 746d ago )

Umm ever consider it will probably just give you the basic ps plus for one year and you will need to upgrade to get the premium one?

porkChop746d ago

No, I believe Sony stated that existing PS Now subs would be converted to PS+ Premium subs.

Nitrowolf2746d ago

they confirmed that PS NOw Subs would convert into Premium. So essentially pay $60 now and come June u get PS Plus, and all the other perks in premium at half the original cost

Gamer75745d ago

For us here in Aotearoa PS+ Premium isn't going to be available straight away so we will have the deluxe version of it instead

Teflon02745d ago

You can ignore the fact they literally specified PS Now users will get converted to premium at no extra cost lol

Silly gameAr746d ago

They could give it to us for a dollar to get those numbers up before it launches.

Just kidding.

Andrew336746d ago

Hahahah so funny.

Just kidding.

Silly gameAr745d ago

Hey, I give 2 ishs what you say!

Just kidding.

rippermcrip745d ago

Microsoft has been way more desperate than that. All you have to do is let your subscription lapse and you can sign up for $1 again.

They've had countless promos giving away free weeks and months with all kinds of crap (cereals, poptarts, drinks, chips, candy).

brewin745d ago

You think that's desperation but it's how you get people hooked on your service. Once people have it for a while they're going to want to keep it. I don't know a single person that has a game pass subscription that has let it lapse. I've been out of my free zone for about 6 months now. I keep finding the 3 months cards for 20 bucks so every time I see that deal I buy 2 or 3 more more. I'm sure Sony will have some promos for their service too.

rippermcrip744d ago

There's a difference between a free/discount trial for new subscribers vs letting a user let their subscription lapse and then immediately sign up for the free trial again.

No subscription services do that except GP.

Everyone you know has signed up for GP and then never let it go? Ya right. They'd have 100 million active subscribers if that were true.

gerbintosh746d ago

Don't let the link open in the app, it doesn't work. Open it in a web browser and it will work

excaliburps745d ago

This. You need to open in a web browser or it won't load.

theindiearmy745d ago

The link in the article goes to a page that says "Not available for purchase." When I click on the link from the Twitter post, it works though. https://twitter.com/Wario64...

IanTH745d ago

Good catch. I even almost went ahead and did it, but I question if I really, truly need any more games to play than I already have lol. I tend to kind of underutilize subscription game services.

theindiearmy745d ago

At the end of the day, it's $60 for PS+ essentials to play online multiplayer anyway. So may as well stack up on this and get access to the games for nothing more.

jlove4life745d ago

App won't load and ps Now Not available for purchase upon opening website

IanTH745d ago

See theinidarmy post above, clicking the link from the tweet actually does work. So if you're interested, give it a shot.

Show all comments (25)