How Sony Should Have Set Subscription Prices For PlayStation Now

One thing that has been kept under wraps regarding Sony’s upcoming PlayStation Now service has been the pricing- we know that the service will be a streaming service, but will it be subscription based?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
MrSwankSinatra1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

Honestly i don't think sony should have wasted money for this. Streaming games is not even practical, why would somebody rent to stream a game when they can go to redbox, gamefly or a local rental store?

Thatguy-3101580d ago

Exactly. I was all for a Netflix type service but having to rent games or putting hr caps on the user account is just playing silly. Hopefully they sort things out and are able to offer the Netflix type subscription that everyone assumed when it was announced.

NewMonday1580d ago

the service is targeted to those without consoles, it is intended to be available on all stream capable devices in the future.

Kingthrash3601580d ago

The service is still in beta. The price model is subject to change. Why are many so fast to judge things Sony does when its incomplete ?..After they fixed problem after problem (most recently tlou preorder refunds) its safe to believe they will try to make psnow they way we want it.

user14394141580d ago ShowReplies(1)
Godmars2901580d ago

Instant - as in "instant" - gratification? Given that they're talking about streaming rather than DL a game, that it takes less time than going somewhere or waiting for a game to be sent to you?

HugoDrax1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

"Streaming games is not even practical, why would somebody rent to stream a game when they can go to redbox, gamefly or a local rental store?"

1) Every game isn't available at your local red box.
2) Same for your local rental store, plus at your local rental store you would have to sign up for an account. Which can be a hassle.
3) Same hassle goes for gamefly. Plus you have to wait for your game to arrive from gamefly.

In my opinion, I love PSNOW. I rented Lumines Supernova & Super Puzzle Fighter HD for 30 days on my PS4. That will give me enough time to 100% both games. Also you have to consider that most PSN games like Super Puzzle Fighter HD was never available on disc. So there would be no way to play those games on your PS4 using red box and gamefly.

nicksetzer11580d ago

1. Neither does PSN, in fact damn far from it. (Gamefly on the other hand does)
2. PSNow requires signup as well....
3. ANY 2 games out for 20$/month vs a very small selection of games at 5$ for 3 days ...

Don't get me wrong, PSNow has great potential, but with it's current library and prices, it is insane.

hkgamer1580d ago

first of all, remeber that this is for ps3 and ps2 games. no ps4 games are planned yet. so this is more of a rent old games kinda thing.

secondly, i want to rent something and play immediately.. think about movies, i can rent on demand or i goto a rental store and pick something out, i choose on demand movies.

now back to streaming ps3 games, can you remeber the horrendous mandatory installation, then downloading updates, then installing updates. could be 30 minutes before you even play the game.

also like to add that you would need a ps3 to play it.

so impractical? noway. would people use psnow? probably not aswelll. but there is a small market for this that would love it.

DualWielding1580d ago

The idea was supposed to be stream games to devices that are not able to run them natively (like PS3 games to PS4 or Vita) but now they are streaming to PS4 PS3 versions of games that have a native PS4 version and they are planning to stream PS3 games to PS3 where they could all be run natively, it doesn't make sense to me why would you want to stream a title unless you have no other choice

intellegent1580d ago

You can't get a PS3 game from redbox or gamefly and play it on your PS4 or Vita.

Malphite1580d ago


I don't have a PS and even though the Uncharted 4 teaser caught my attention I'd much rather play the other Uncharted games before to understand what is going ond and who those characters are.

Malphite1580d ago

I meant: I don't have a PS3.

To late to edit.

Christopher1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

1. With regard to the comparisons to RedBox here, remember that PS Now can be done from a PS4, PS3, PS Vita, PS Vita TV, and in the future probably a lot more.

2. To add to #1, if the pricing is the same structure as those services, it should be an easier and less work-needed option for those with the Internet speeds needed.

3. To go back to the article, the "$99/year for 45 hours a month of gaming via PS Now" is not going to work solely because the games being played by third-parties need to get their money for the time you play. So, essentially, this isn't going to work because of third-party publishers.

4. The pricing scheme for some games are perfectly fine for this, but still really only enticing for those who don't have a PS3 and can't get the games for $10 on disc.

5. I am interested to see if PS+ will have any affect on future discounts and if Sony will move forward with their idea of doing "publisher bundles" rentals and to see who much that would cost (it should be much cheaper, no?).

Edit: 7. This service would be a lot better if it wasn't for a set number of hours from delivery but actual hours that you utilize the game/service. 4 hours would be 4 hours of play time, one week would be 168 hours of play time, and so on.

Back-to-Back1580d ago

Good luck finding ps4 games at redbox.

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1580d ago
XiSasukeUchiha1580d ago

Honestly to man it's seems interesting, how cloud is slowly coming into gaming world, one day at a time.

DigitalHope1580d ago

Honestly treat it like an arcade. Sell time in different amounts. Use the time towards any game and top up when you need to.

gamerfan09091580d ago

Sony doesn't have control over the situation. Subscription prices have to be negotiated with third party devs. It costs major amounts of money to pull this off and they can't control the price for it. Michael Pacther explained this beautifully on Pach Attack like 4 months ago. What Sony or for that matter Microsoft should've done from the beginning was make two sku's. One console for less money without backward compatibility and another with backward compatibility for a higher price more HDD space, ect.

colonel1791580d ago

Backward compatibility is not something that you can just put int he console like the HDD. The reason the PS2 had PS1 BC was because it had the PS1 components inside the PS2. The same was true for PS3 (PS2), Wii (GC), Wii U (Wii).

It's something that they have to take into account since they start to design the console and the reason they don't put BC anymore is most likely to reduce cost of production. If they had put PS3 BC on the PS4, the PS4 might not have 8 GB of memory and maybe it wouldn't have been GDDR5

DualWielding1580d ago

a X86 system was never going to be BC compatible with a Power PC based one, it was a choice that had to be made, if they continue with x86 based systems all future iterations of the console should be able to backward compatible though

wolokowoh1580d ago (Edited 1580d ago )

That argument is ridiculous. Netflix has the same problems with movie studios as Sony does with third parties. PS Now should eventually be $20-$25 a month for access to everything the service has. That is enough to to pay the publishers royalties from the games industry version of syndication. Netflix streaming and subscription model was very basic and not a good value at all when it launched and they fixed over time. It was like one dollar an hour or something similar. Then it became unlimited. Right now Sony are trying to work their way up to that standard. When you launch a service like this it takes time for the value to be there for most people. Look at PS+. It was great before the IGC launched and now its substantially better in most respects including the IGC having newer games.

Show all comments (48)
The story is too old to be commented.