Sony still working to bring subscription option to PS Now

The PlayStation Now open beta begins tomorrow for North American PS4 owners, but there's still a ton of questions surrounding the rental streaming service. For starters, whatever happened to the Netflix-like subscription plan?

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
1960d ago Replies(5)
XiNarutoUzumaki1960d ago

This should have been the main option from the start.

Darkstares1960d ago

Agreed. They should have a monthly plan for full access but Sony doesn't want to confuse people with PS+ subscription models. Instead they should be offering some form of a Platinum Plus model where you get everything PS+ gives you as well as PS Now for something like $99 a year or $14.99 a month.

My guess is this will be a trial period first with the rentals to see how well it does and go from there.

Hellsvacancy1960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

Working? it's easy "hay you, with the glasses, add a subscription offer to PS Now NOW"

How hard could it honestly be?

This EA thing, do you stream the games or do you download them?

Thatguy-3101960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

They need to make profit. Plus take into account that deals between third-parties that have to take place too. So it's not as easy as you expect.

ThatOneGuyThere1960d ago

you've clearly never worked for a major game studio. its not that easy to do anything. also, dude, sony is a console maker, not just a small game studio. theyve got a LOT of compliance testing, etc to go through to make any small move.

gamer11381960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

I think the reason for individual rentals is it is expensive to host all these different games if no one is playing them.

Say you have Game A which is hugely popular and has thousands of people playing it. That covers the cost of hosting and makes a profit. Now Game B isn't popular, it gets a handful of users playing it now and then. Those users can't cover the cost of hosting and so Game B starts to lose the service money. As the provider you can decide Game B isn't worth the cost of hosting and remove it, replacing it with Game C which proves popular and covers the cost of hosting and makes a profit. A subscription service would provide a blanket and not really give a real indication of how popular one game is over another as users can log on to any Game (A,B or C) without any incurred cost and just give them a go.

Razjin1960d ago

Nice example sir or mam.

iamnsuperman1960d ago

They could still see how popular titles are via how many plays the titles get (player counts and also how often people come back to them) and remove them where need be. The issue with subscription services is getting people to pay and keep on paying monthly. Requires far more planning than individual prices

iamnsuperman1960d ago

It is a lot more complicated than that. First how much to charge that still remains profitable while attracting people to use the service is a balancing act that you can't get wrong. Then you have the resource allocation to manage the subscription service (from paying methods to dedicated team to make sure things don't go hay wire). Then you have to market the subscription service. Considering the service does the per title option as well it would take a lot of careful planning to make sure the end user isn't confused. Lots of things to do

Hellsvacancy1959d ago

I would of thought Sony would of all ready realized this, I assumed it was one of the first things they would of worked on "how much money can we make, is it worth investing in"

It must be my black/white way of looking at things, I think everything's easy

ShowanW1960d ago


You actually download the games, and run them locally ...

no_more_heroes1960d ago

You download the games with EA Access, not stream them.

SilentNegotiator1959d ago (Edited 1959d ago )

Figuring out royalty distribution with an unlimited subscription and getting publishers to agree to something takes a lot of time and negotiation, I would think.

It's simple when it's just "so and so pays to access said game. Said game's publisher gets a cut."

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1959d ago
Ashlen1960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

Well I'll say the same thing I say when MS talks about cloud... Put-up or shut-up, I'll believe it when I see it.

Anyways it's unlikely I'll get any service based on streaming. I find the lag to make the experience unplayable, especially anything that involves fine touch ex. aiming a cursor.

aconnellan1960d ago

With EA Access, you download the game, not stream it. I agree though, my internet doesn't like streaming. Would that change your mind?

Ashlen1960d ago (Edited 1960d ago )

Well, not from EA no.

But if Sony offered a pay one fee and I could play a selection of downloadable games I might bite. But that's pretty much what PS+ is.

I would have preferred if MS had just gotten these games for there games with gold program instead of letting EA basically exclude there games from that service while letting EA charge there own fee.

EA Access doesn't benefit the gamers as much as MS loyalists want to say it does, but they're not going to say anything bad about MS so... whatever.

SilentNegotiator1959d ago

Yeah, I'd play something like Doki Doki Universe if it meant getting to play it cheaper, but I wouldn't use a streaming service for shooters, action games, etc.

JMaine5181960d ago

I'm lookin foward to the subscription prices. Please don't screw this up Sony!

Show all comments (70)
The story is too old to be commented.