Sony Needs to Realize that PlayStation Now's Prices are Ludicrous- Here's a Reasonable Pricing Model

PlayStation Now is a very cool idea. It was welcomed with enthusiasm by PlayStation fans when it was announced at CES back in February. Unfortunately now the wind has radically changed, and the service mostly raises eyebrows and triggers irritated frowns. The pricing model is nearly the sole culprit of this downturn in popularity.

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
Majin-vegeta1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

Copied from an earlier comment i made.

Imo if Sony wants PSnow to succeed they should consider the following. Or somethig similar.

-Both subscription and single rentals.
-Offer PS+ subs say a 10% discount on rentals
-Rent x amount of games and get a certain percentage off your next PSN purchase.
-Allow people to buy games
-Offer 30 minute free trials for all games.
-Rewards program. #5

randomass1711934d ago

This sounds exactly like what it should be. All access subscription would be so much better than individual rentals. I hope Sony considers the idea and discounts PS+ subscribers.

candoa1934d ago

What I find funny is that all the ps fans where making fun of microsoft for talking about the cloud. I heard nonstop joke about the cloudz and the powa of the cloudz!!! and now Sony is streaming games on the cloud and yet nobody is saying that is not going to work, hypocrites. Cloud gaming doesn't work is not going to work for ms and is not going to work for sony. The difference is the ms cloud is free and sony cloud you pay for it which make it worse. This are the type of scenario that shows the sony has the worst fan base and what is even worse is that they're are the most vocal.

Moe-Gunz1934d ago


Cloud streaming and cloud computing is two different things.

DanteVFenris6661934d ago

@candoa cloud is basically a streaming service. It's a new fancy weird for "we have internet, we can send you data" or "we have internet, we can store your data and send it back to you". So there are different ways you can use this. Sony wants to make a renting service, which would obviously a paid for thing. Microsoft, I don't even know what there doing with it because I haven't noticed anything better. But the Argument when Microsoft announced it is that the claimed it could improve the ones performance by 5 times or some bs like that. Is the one 5 times more powerful thanks to the cloud? No, so it's still bs. Microsoft was shoving bs sony is offering a product it's a huge difference

incredibleMULK1934d ago

I got a better idea for sony...get your receibt take your gaikai back to the gaikai store and get your $360 million dollarz back because you won't get it back just a few bucks from a couple peanut headed fanboys.

Hey everyone lets pay $400 bux for a playstation FOUR to stream playstation THREE games! Hopefully if we're lucky we can stream ps 1 games and indies. I totally wanna stream a 300 megabyte game!

morganfell1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

The article is just off the mark. As in completely off the mark and I usually agree with a good deal of their writing.

Some people can sit down and beat a single player game in a day. Many will. So that's a rental for a game they will complete and never touch again for less than $2.

Think about that from a publisher point of view. You just gave up selling a game that currently may be discounted to $29 in exchange for a $2 rental. Likely $1 of that goes to Sony. So you traded your share of $29 for $1. How much sense did that just make? Do you think that sounds good to publishers?

Granted that many of these people would not buy the game in the first place but at the end of the day it just does not add up for publishers to practically give the games away.

I agree that the 4 hour rental prices are steep. In addition, they should allow a continuance price where if you rent for 4 hours and play a game you can extend that rental to a full day or a week if you commit to the extension within 7 days of the 4 hour rental period. You shouldn't pay for a 4 hour rental and then the next day decide you are going to rent the game for a full day and have to pay the full 24 hour access price.

And take note it isn't all Sony making these decisions yet they are the only ones bearing the brunt of attacks from people they either intentionally or by nearsightedness fail to comprehend the vast number of moving parts in this equation. These same persons also do not look at the very simple math equation of the current cost of a game versus the rental price. Yes the publisher is secure in the knowledge that the individual cannot turn around and sell the game but at the same time neither is the publisher earning anything within rifle shot of the retail earnings of that title.

MazzingerZ1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

I guess they aim to a different audience, the "streaming folks", the commodity of just playing without being forced to invest in a console and PS+ subscription and all the "hassle" around it, maybe for us gaming is crystal clear but not for those not being 100% dedicated gamers

Just like games for phones, what I have seen is nothing for me...but why do I think like that? because I've been gaming since stone age but for many it's a new's there, at the reach of their hand and easy to access...a "why not?" doesn't imply more than downloading something and start it in a device you already own...those that made fun of us in the past for liking games, sit now in the train clicking on silly bubbles...

PS Now aims to other audience, a different demographic as a complement to the PS nation, I don't think it's trying to mainly sell it to console owners but anyway, SONY should be more clear who are the main customers of this service so people doesn't create false expectations...or at least have an different offering for PS+ subscribers

I look at movie renting services here in the Nordics and must say that it's not a big difference, some titles are old but still priced high, new titles are more expensive than renting the disc...but you know what? I still pay for it because I don't have the energy to go and rent them, sometime is so damn cold :-)...or order the movie (or trying to find a nice used copy) and then resell it, too much energy for just saving a couple of bucks...for a movie that it's not worth that much effort and I WANT TO WATCH NOW..that's the selling point...NOW

Same thing with some games I assume, the thing of becoming adult and with ok economy is to give yourself these small paying for a good beer in a bar, it would be cheaper if I drink at home but the simple fact of being served is well worth the price, beer tastes better at the pub :-)

So let's forget about asking those people to get a console to just play 1 game every here and then or become experts in gaming market and its pricing.

Prices will go down a little at launch anyway, but not as low as many want, that 4 hours rental is rather a timed demo that for those folks will be well worth it as they are not expert gamers, cheaper than buying something (7, 30 or 90 days) you have no idea if you will enjoy.

Edit: The idea from Morganfell above of extending that demo ( I call the 4H rent a demo:-)) for a cheaper fee sounds fair.

Conzul1934d ago

The bias against M$ is because regardless of pricing, they have failed to deliver on their magnanimous cloud promises in any significant way. No matter how ludicrous the pricing, PSNow is very stable and works well.

OT: I just bought a week's worth of Catherine (haven't played it ever) and it feels/looks great (responsiveness is 4.5/5 over my WiFi). The thing is....I don't think that the pricess are bad by themselves. I think they're quite good - actually.

What's bad is the complete absence of buffet/subscription.
It's halfway through space year two-thousand-fourteen. Gimme gameflix or go home.

UnHoly_One1933d ago

You guys wanting a subscription model are going to crap yourselves when they announce a price.

If they offer unlimited access to everything I see it costing no less than 100 dollars a month.

Before you blindly hit disagree, look at how much 1 day of 1 game costs, then multiply that by 30 days and 120 games.

It will not be cheap enough for anyone to want to pay it. It can't be if they want to make money.

morganfell1933d ago


You are correct. An Unlimited - and that is the clarification - an Unlimited subscription would be expensive. People just do not understand that fact. A subscription that offers X number of titles a month less so. But Unlimited will cost a considerable amount. Possibly more than your stated $100.

However there are those of us to whom $100 a month for such a subscription is insignificant.

randomass1711933d ago

$100 a month for subscription cloud gaming? You guys are crazy. OnLive does cloud gaming and they do $8 a month, just like Netflix and Hulu. Sony can do something similar and still make it profitable.

morganfell1933d ago (Edited 1933d ago )

No randommass, they cannot:


And onlive isn't exactly known for it's quality.

JD_Shadow1933d ago

We already knew this, morgan. That's part of the problem here: they're giving the devs and publishers an inch, and they are taking a mile, just as they made that mistake of not making trophies mandatory when they first implemented that system.

The thing is that if EA Access becomes a success for them, and there's no reason to think it won't, then PS Now will be forced to rethink their strategy. Sony has already said they were getting requests for a subscription model that they were looking into, but there no guarantee that they will implement it. This is why Sony didn't want EA Access on their system: they knew what people would choose instead of the overpriced, single game option that Sony has right now.

They need a subscription model. PERIOD! It's like they forgot how much pull THEY have with these publishers and devs to work with them to create a system that's fair for everyone, and not just for the bottom line.

And no one is going to beat a game within a day of getting it or renting it. I'm not sure which games YOU'RE playing that you can beat within one day, but I'm pretty sure that if you're seriously beating games the same day you first play them, then you really need to think about the difficulty of the games you're actually playing. Might say a lot about how games need to be harder to beat. Most people are going to do side stuff and whatnot, too. Can't see how that is even a point that you're able to use with a straight face.

morganfell1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

Lets 8 hour game can be beaten in a day and there are plenty of 8 hour games on the list. Your idea people cannot beat a game in a day is ridiculous. I have gone through plenty of AAA titles in a sitting. Coonsidering how many people talk about going through a game in even less time, particularly reviewers, considering the briefness of some games is often such a big deal, I do not see how you can claim a game can't be beaten in a sitting with a straight face.

And considering that most people that BUY games do not finish them the effect is precisely the same.

Hardware manufacturers only have so much pull with publishers. You act as if they can dictate completely the terms of a situation in which several publishers are not ready to participate at all as they do not yet believe it is a feasible model. Now you want Sony to dictate the terms to non-participants? Brilliant. What is your next ideas? National Healthcare?

JD_Shadow1932d ago

First off, aren't we touchy today?

Now, when reviewers talk about time it might take to complete the game, they are not factoring in things like real life implications, the skill of the player, whether or not a player chooses to follow the same path of progression, etc. What other priorities do you have in daily life? What games are you playing (fighting games can be "completed" in one sitting, but with one character out of a full roster)? How skilled do you consider yourself to be as a gamer?

Their also not considering side quests that might deviate from the main story. It might only take X amount of hours to complete the main story, but a plethora of additional hours to do everything there is to do in the game (like, if I want to try a harder difficulty and really dare the game to bring on the pain, for instance). How about games like Saints Row 2 and GTA, which part of the experience is the open world, sandbox aspect (SR2 is on PS Now, by the way).

But this still digresses from the main issue here, which is the current pricing model of the PS Now, which is very unfair to say the very least. You mean to tell me that you think the pricing model is perfectly fine, and that a subscription model shouldn't even be considered? That's a very elitist way of thinking.

Several have had issues with the pricing, and I have to agree when you compare it to EA Access, or just outright buying the game. You talk about how much it MIGHT cost for a subscription model (which is bloated to say the least), but if you consider how much it would cost NOW to get those same amount of games, you would be hard pressed to find a defense for the current pricing model. Plus, it IS an open beta, and by that definition, Sony is actively looking for feedback from consumers. Shouldn't we be hard on them in order to get a better product.

And yes, I DO think that Sony has some pull (more than you might think). Remember the platform this is on and how well it's performed in the marketplace currently.

Oh, and yes, I do have an idea for national healthcare: Republicans stay the hell out of Obama's way (since they don't have a clue what health care even IS at this point), and he brings the public option back for those people who cannot afford to get health insurance from insurance companies that are only looking for their bottom line.

morganfell1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

Touchy? Ahahaha. I used one of your own lines and I am touchy? Ahahaha. No, I am laughing and loving it. And I am on the winning side. You? Well, like last gen you cannot grasp reality and you cannot plot the future. Nor can you back the company that wins by puttting gamers first.

Reviewers are not genius players. I can look at my friends list and I can look at every gaming forum. Both of those are full of people talking about how little time it took to finish this game or that. You can ignore the truth if you want but it just makes look you even more laughable.

Talking about side quests is useless when most gamers do not spend a great deal of time with them. Your problem, besides not understanding the use of the pronoun 'Their', is you think everyone games like you do when a broad sample of message boards as well as practical experience with other gamers shows most burn through titles faster than you...or I for that matter. I am a side quester too and do everything but most gamers are not. They do a few at the first, then forego them or do not finish the title at all. Most simply do not complete the game...period.

That is just one report of many. Gamers complete, on average, less than 50% of a title.

This means the short game applies to them as well. I can separate myself from the way others play games but you are unable to do that. You want to impose your play style and cannot see that your method as well as mine is not the norm.

The pricing is not unfair. Not overall. The 4 hour needs some tweaking but other than that most prices are comparable. Those that are not may or may not be Sony's fault. Which IS the main issue. Like other uninformed persons, you want to blame Sony for everyone else's decisions. Too bad it isn't their fault.

By the way, Sony are going to win this generation so start throwing things now. Eventually PS Now down into its place and just like CDs, just like DVDs, just like Blu-ray, people will look back and say, "Sony brought the new de facto standard to the latest generation."

Sony has done that the last 3 generations and there were naysayers over price and viability every time. And each and every time those cries faded as Sony was proven to be right and these nobody detractors became some other whiny celldweller on a message board. This gen will be no different.

Oh yeah, Republicans are at fault. Right. Whatewver. Unlike you I am not affiliated with any party and understand they are ALL at fault. You on the other hand are carrying the Democrat flag. Ha ha ha, another person fooled by political leaders. They are ALL at fault. Your belief in one side over the other is proof of your gullibility.

But I do not believe in redistribution of wealth for lazy people unwilling to take personal responsibility and they walk around with their hand out wanting persons like myself to pay for their lack of drive and dedication. People such as myself that started with nothing and worked hard so I could retire quite comfortably at a very early age.

Government health care is a failure in every country in which it has been tried and the US is no different. "Like your doctor? You can keep them. Your premiums will go down." All lies, just like the tripe you are trying to spin about gaming.

There is a reason your Ignore to Follower ratio is 7:1.

JD_Shadow1932d ago

You're going on the notion that I'm for one company over another, and are still under this impression that because I called out Sony over that whole anti-homebrew & hacking fiasco, that I'm an anti-Sony guy. It's as if no one is ever allowed to criticize them in your mind. And when they do, you attack them with worthless things such as their ignore/follow ratio (which I bet you, outside of one - you - the rest are trolls who will just blindly ignore anyone who doesn't agree 100 percent with them). I want gamers to win. I want for gamers to be able to have the information they need to make conscious decisions on whether or not they are being swindled, and what game to buy. I want for gamers to be treated fairly and with a degree of respect. I don't cater to fanboys of any description, as much as people would like to think that me and some other pundits do.

Here's the gist of it: I disagree with you on your fundamental aspect. You're free to discuss it and debate it with me (and be somewhat snark about it if you choose), but back up your opinions with actual facts that you've sourced from somewhere, and give those who disagree with you the same amount of respect for at least giving you their reasons (and actually listen instead of dismissing them as some anti-Sony troll).

People have other things they do outside of gaming. With me, I have work, I have my YouTube channel, and I have a life outside of my house and outside of gaming that I do. I have a lot of things that I do, and because of that, my time with games can shrink from time to time. I might not progress in games as quickly as some other people. Thing is, what I accused you of, you're trying to say I'm doing here, when I'm the one that brought the point up.

The story you linked was from GDC, in what a few people said when referencing Steam Achievements, which might mean anything from not completely the main story to not FCing the game. And if they don't finish the game, as you've said, then how can they "complete the game in one day", also as you've said? Seems like, according to this logic, they only complete the main story and skip the side stuff, much to what you are suddenly claiming. But it's not all the time that happens.

And again, that's digressing from the price issue. You have yet to bring up the possibility of a subscription model (which Sony themselves have admitted that they are exploring; wonder what you'll think of that if and when they do implement it). The prices are too steep and defeat the entire purpose of the rental system. 5 bucks for one game, for just four hours, is ludicrous when your all-over-the-place logic is implemented.

For the record, I'm a proud subscriber to Gamefly (have been for a few years now), and I really like the service. I do the two game subscription, and it's much better in terms of pricing. Imagine what Sony could do with a system like that where one flat fee per month gets you a lot of those titles. They don't even have to charge that much (maybe link a commitment to it).

But right now, the pricing doesn't work because it's way too steep for the amount of time they are asking for it. And the 90 day plan is more than the price for a used game at Gamestop for that same game. I don't get where you're getting this "you don't deserve it if you can't pay the asking price" attitude from (though you seem to be scaling it back now that I've called you out on it), but it doesn't help matters.

By the way, you should stop believing everything Fox Noise shills out at you! That's your first problem there!

morganfell1932d ago (Edited 1932d ago )

No, I am going on your post history. Despite what people say, their actions define them. It isn't that no one is allowed to criticize Sony. It is no one is allowed to criticize them unjustly. Your history is replete with such actions. Wear your stripes because you earned them...all on your own.

You attack them for a pricing model and a plan that just entered open beta. A plan whose prices they do not solely determine.


This open beta is the point where they will get a feel for the prices. Closed betas were more about the network and serviceability. But you will not give them 5 days before you are on them. Lack of patience is a sign of insufficient maturity.

I did not initiate this snarkiness. You did. You began it with the comment that I was touchy. When I returned your pitch your suddenly attempt to take the high ground as if you were not responsible for turning the conversation thus. You are indeed. At least have the sense of character to own that for which your are culpable.

If you truly wanted gamers to win you would offer less attacks and more solutions. Shouting 'Cheaper' is not a solution when you fail to consider all of the moving parts. Sony is attempting to do that which no other console manufacturer has proven capable and which no other company has done successfully. On Live is hardly a success. Instead of attempting to critique responsibly what could be a genre redefining moment you resort to the same ill-informed attacks as any ignorant detractor. Yet you wish me to consider you better than your comments reveal you to be? No.

People have other things to do outside of gaming. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE THE FACTS. Hordes of gamers complete titles rapidly and even more do not finish games which they begin. Thank you for attempting to divert from the facts rather than addressing them. And remember, when addressing the facts you cannot change the facts. They are after all, facts.

You do not know if the pricing is working. Another erred statement. You have only heard some screaming, partially yours, from a minority on the internet. Yes it is a minority. Millions of gamers have access and you have not seen millions of people crying. Not even close. Less than 1% actually. We are 5 days into the open beta. I have been in it since day one of the closed portion. I have watched changes occur. Vast changes. Yet you take the tact of a child wanting everything to shift to your accord and right now. You grant Sony zero time to gather information and feedback. Instead, you attack, your criticize, and you handily reveal the sort of shortsightedness that prevents anyone from taking you with even a modicum of seriousness. Laugh at the ration of Ignores all you wish. It exists for a reason and that reason is quite telling.

And Fox News? Can you not read? I am not like you. I do not support the right or the left. I know they are both equally full of liars though I dislike more any side which thinks it possesses a legitimate claim to take more of my earnings and hand it off to less willing, less driven individuals. Them that shall not work shall not eat is a mantra. Again, you fail to even acknowledge you are the one that supports an extreme view where I recognize the entire lot Right, Left, NBC, Fox News, CNN are all populated with liars and deceivers. One of us has been played by a side and that person is not me.

BTW, the bubble count is on my side.

JD_Shadow1932d ago

1. I said subscription model as an alternative (which you've conveniently ignored).

2. I called you touchy because you went after my first comment as if it was a personal attack on you (it wasn't). It was over the top, yes, but so was your first comment to me.

3. Anytime someone has a disagreement with you, you get like this. You put me on your ignore list after you PMed me with nastiness about my opinions. It's not just me. Just because you like Sony doesn't mean you have to agree on every single thing they do. You can't just agree to disagree. It's a disagreement about how to fix the pricing issue (and it IS an issue if even Sony is halfway admitting that they're getting requests for a better alternative).

4. Beta means not finished. One of the things that Sony actively asked for when they launched the beta was to get feedback on the pricing structure. If they didn't want the feedback, then they shouldn't be calling it a beta. Stress tests are a form of feedback, but it doesn't mean that no one can't tell them about other things.

5. So, nearly everyone that has a forum to express their opinions about PS Now has said that the prices are too steep. You're the only one denying that anyone's saying that. How many opinion pieces has there been on this site alone that have brought up the pricing issue? Why are you the only one so willing to defend the pricing structure and hope that they actively deny them an alternative? If even you're willing to say that they could improve something about it, then why are you spewing venom at anyone trying to give one?

6. Give Sony time? Okay, so...I've said a sub model is a better bet. It didn't take long for me to say that there was a problem just by looking at it. You've been in the closed beta. Good for you! That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion about it. My feeling is that they should've thought about a subscription model as a standard and should've not have needed to be told that it was needed. You may disagree with that, but that is my assessment. Gamefly, and now EA Access, are doing this. Why didn't Sony give players that option to begin with? Please, answer that question without overreacting.

7. That link proves...what exactly? Something we've already acknowledged and are saying is part of the problem here?

8. You said beliefs about the ACA that was akin to what Fox spews. Regardless, I said that initial thing in response to "Now you want Sony to dictate the terms to non-participants? Brilliant. What is your next ideas? National Healthcare?" We could debate all day about that, but Daily Kos is a better forum for that (where I also frequent).

Finally, I would love to be able to just debate this without someone getting so defensive over this. I don't see your reasoning for thinking this is something personal against you. We're all gamers in the end, right? Regardless of bubble count or whatever the hell is the important stat on this site the next time around, bottom line is that we kind of want the same thing: a fair pricing model that benefits everyone. Right now, I don't think that it does, and not many do (contrary to your belief, many have seen Sony's reaction to EA Access as proof that they were scared of the alternative). If you have a different opinion, then fine. But please express it in a way that doesn't sound like you hate me and think I'm some horrible person just because I disagree with you. Yeah, I know I can come off blunt and to the point (that's why I consider myself a pundit), but I swear that I do that because I believe in what I say, and if I'm wrong...then I'm wrong. But I don't think I am here.

morganfell1932d ago

I did not ignore the fact you said subscription. I merely addressed the points with which I disagreed. Why in a debate would you discuss the issues with which you are not in accord? Do you not understand how debates function?

A subscription model will be expensive. Moreso than people realize.

You think I went after you because: I said an idea of yours was ridiculous...and then explained why. I used your straight face comment against you...returned your throw. And I asked if you had a great idea like National Health care. No you started this rock throwing. AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY SOMETHING AT LEAST HAVE THE CHARACTER TO OWN IT.

What am I to do when someone with whom I disagree responds? Should I just give in and adopt their views? SEE MY FIRST PARAGRAPH. Why can't YOU agree to disagree?

And no, I blocked you because your remarks became personal. My comments to you in the PM were no more harsh than we have seen here. You were the one that resorted to vulgarity in that exchange. I simply messaged you to state that PS3 hacking was illegal. I PM'ed you in an attempt to prevent what has happened here. Your entire last reply has completely gone off the rails and away from the subject.

Beta means not finished. Do you really think that the current version of PS Now is finished? In addition to not having all of the features it has yet to expand to all devices, something which affects the entire structure of Now. Like it or not, it is in beta. Also you do not know the difference between feedback and just screaming cheaper. And this isn't the Sony forum nor the area for their feeback. Did you register there and voice your opinion? I am not denying you some right, rather exercising my own rights. You want something which you would disallow others because you find their points of view inconvenient.

Where did I deny that people on forums are not saying prices are too steep? Where? Where did I say that? No, your memory is being selective to support your view. I said that these people screaming'Cheaper' are actually the minority. If you consider that most people that currently have access to Now are not screaming on a forum then it is simple math that those with an issue are the minority. Gaming forums...not the world.

You do not have access to Sony's numbers so you do not know how many people are renting at what prices. People complain...and then rent. Renting tells Sony, "This is okay." It is called logical deduction, you should try it sometime.

I did say give Sony some time before having a hissy fit. No where have I said you can't have an opinion. But when you are wrong be prepared to get a beatdown over it. That is how the game works. You should be aware of the old axiom about kitchens, heat, and getting out of them when you cannot tolerate it.

The link proves...that the blame game you and others have chosen to play needs to include other names beside Sony. But you have decided to ignore this fact. Oh facts, such inconvenient things for some people...

Because I do not believe in Government Health care and I do not like Obama means I must be a Fox News supporter? Ha ha ha. Typical leftists tripe. Because I support stricter education laws does that make me a member of the Nazi Party? No, you are simply wrong on this too. News flash. I didn't like George Bush either. An equal failure.

What you want is a debate where you can win. That will not occur here. My first reponse to you said your ideas were ridiculous. And then I demonstrated why. How is that not staying on point. I have stayed on message yet you are the one that have become defensive and taken this entire discussion off track and made it about you, your feeling, people being defensive. Mentioning Health care is a literary device known as an allusion.

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 1932d ago
Ezz20131934d ago

Sony would be dump if they didn't do most of what you just typed

Playstation now price is just wrong

gigoran1934d ago

How does one be "dump"?

It's simple really. Be able to stream any games you purchase on PSN. Leave them with their rentals and things. In some way they are reasonable. You go buy a $60 game, play it for a few months, then trade it for PEANUTS at some game store.

To put it into terms you can understand

Scenario 1: Buy $60 game - months later sell for $5
TOTAL = loss of $55

Scenario 2: Rent game for $40 (90 days)
TOTAL = loss of $40

Wow! How hard is that to understand? But here is the biggest thing that NOBODY seems to even care about.

Sony has noted that this is a beta test and the service will continue to change. "We are listening to our customers, and if customers want to see features or functions as part of PlayStation Now, they should feel free to let us know," the company said.

uh dirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr guess nobody even cares that these prices are temporary and not the final prices.

user14394141934d ago

@gigoran you are missing the point totally, Sony are offering streaming last gen games that are over a year old and do not cost nowhere near $60 to buy now. So you are paying more to stream the game to the ps4 for a month than having a physical copy of the game what you can sell when you are done 1 or 2 months later for about the same price u paid for it. Now it would be a different story if they was offering rentals of the latest games what just come out.

I hope Sony can come up with something that can work and people be happy with the price. I own 47 PS3 games some on disk and some digital and thats not including all the games I got from PS plus so when I heard about PS NOW I misunderstood it for being a way to play all my catalogue of PS3 games on PS4 through a streaming service. But when I found out I was going to have buy them again or rent them I was not so keen on the idea unless its done by a subscription. I mean I would gladly pay a subscription just to be able to play my PS3 games I own on PS4.

youndamie1934d ago

Flatout buying games without a subscription will never happen. They can't let people stream a purchased game indefinitely, the cost on them would be to much.

C-H-E-F1934d ago

Not actually, it will only cost them when you "stream the game". Most games have a 90day play window anyways soooo within month 4 it's unlikely that you'd be "Streaming" that purchased game as much as you used to so with that being said... it may be cheaper to sell the game through a streaming service like this opposed to paying for manufacturing of a physical CD. Especially Indie/AAA games with small replayability.

WeAreLegion1934d ago

Yes, they can and do. Any game you purchased on PS3 can be played on the PlayStation Now Beta for free. I can go play all of Catherine right now on my PS4 without paying a cent to rent it.

This is why people think PlayStation Now is bad. Nobody has any idea what they're talking about. They're just complaining about everything.

Majin-vegeta1934d ago

@We are

Really i did not know this.

pkb791934d ago

Are you sure cause I bought DoA 5 on PSN and cannot steam it for free on my PS4 with PS Now.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1934d ago
JoGam1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

What's the highest price you would pay for a subscription? Thats the question everyone needs to think about. Sony and others need to make money. I'm pretty sure the price points is to make a profit.

Outlaw19861934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

$20 a month $120 a year?

That still seems high Imo since I will still want to spend most my time playing new ps4 games and not going back to play ps3 games.

UnHoly_One1933d ago

No chance it will be as low as 20 a month. No chance at all.

marinelife91934d ago

The article actually presents a pretty good pricing model.

I hope Sony realizes they get zero revenue off of a game if everyone thinks the rental price is too expensive.

Spotie1933d ago

I hope everybody realizes these prices aren't dictated by Sony.

alwayzbusi11934d ago

That's decent, and the rental prices and times can use a little adjusting as well. But the main problem is most of us are looking at PS Now from the wrong perspective anyway. Most of us on N4G and other game sites are hardcore gamers and probably own a PS3 anyway.

The core audience of PS Now is not going to be PS3 owners. It's going to be the people that don't own a PS3 but own a PS4, Vita, PSTV or other PS Now capable device.

Think about the person that only owns a Vita but really wants to play MGS4. Would PS Now's prices be "ludicrous" to them or would it be more "ludicrous" for them to buy a PS3 for $199 to purchase and play that one game?

Blackcanary1934d ago

Instead of posting ur idea where Sony won't see it post it in the BETA forums for PS Now.

joab7771934d ago

I agree with everything u have written.

But I wonder if Sony started high to work down to an agreeable amount. Yeah, would b easier to simply compete with other rental services as it would help sell consoles and tvs...but u know how they do everything the hard way.

Bennibop1934d ago

This is all well and good all these articles telling Sony how they should price the service but in the case of 90% of the games on Now or will feature in the future it's not Sony who decides the pricing but the individual publishers. So personally I believe we are picketing the wrong company!

Christopher1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

The price model Dual Shockers provides is not feasible. It costs more than $1/day to stream a game to your device.

harrisk9541933d ago

The prices are too high for a 4-hour rental, but the 7-day rental prices seem ok to me. I would definitely consider a 7 day rental on a game for $5-8 if I thought that it was a single play experience that could be played through in 10-15 hours.

Also, I think that if Sony only offered a subscription or very cheap rentals on just Sony-owned IPs, first and and second-party games (From the PS1 through the PS3 eras) with a smattering of 3rd party games, it would be a worthwhile service. If companies like Square, Activision, EA, etc., don't want to play ball, Sony doesn't necessarily need them... that is what sets Sony apart from MS (and even Nintendo) -- a HUGE spectrum of all sorts of game that are exclusive or have been exclusive to the PS platforms!

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1932d ago
Eonjay1934d ago

You know. As it turns out, Sony isn't stupid. They made the unusual step of making it clear that Sub Models are under consideration, which they must be. It will be something reasonable and then it will be interesting to see if this service attracts a large subscription base.

Abriael1934d ago

They weren't stupid even when they released the PS3 for an unreasonable price. Yet they admitted it was a mistake.

You don't need to be stupid to make mistakes.

Eonjay1934d ago

Yeah I understand what you are saying, but I really don't think they made a mistake. Remember that they started with a closed beta. These concerns aren't new. We have both seen many articles lamenting the high pricing before the open beta.

I believe that it became immediately clear the prices wouldn't work. But, they continue to roll the service out. Everything is on time. I am surprise how on schedule everything is. Most importantly, the service works.

I believe that the subscriptions setups are very complex when dealing with multiple IP's. The Legal framework must be crushing. Its not ready yet. The rollout must go on. It can only improve at this point.

So yes I do agree with you that current pricing model is bad.

Th4Freak1934d ago

"Sony isn't stupid".

PSV says hi.

LOGICWINS1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

"Sony isn't stupid"

PS Move says hi. So does the heavy focus on 3D gaming a few years ago.

I still support them, but that doesn't mean they haven't made some dumbass decisions in their time.

WeAreLegion1934d ago

I'm glad they went with Move and 3D. Two of my favorite aspects of last generation.

LOGICWINS1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

I LOVED Move. Playing Killzone 3 with Sharpshooter was the most fun I've ever had with an FPS campaign. RE5 was fantastic with it as well. But Sony failed to promote it properly. That was the dumbass part

I still have my Sharpshooter and Move controller in my room collecting dust and every time my friends come over they ask to use it...then I have to explain to them that there are no PS4 shooters that support it.

ALLWRONG1934d ago

The fact that people are defending this is pathetic. Just bend over and say "thank you Sony may I have another" Freaking Sony fans SMH.

Eonjay1934d ago

No is defending this. Some have pointed out that the weekly plans are "okay" but in general, we are waiting to see if the sub plans are any good.

kenshiro1001933d ago

Who defended this?
Stop trying to stir up trouble.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1933d ago
AutoCad1934d ago

$50 a year subscription will be good imo

LOGICWINS1934d ago

Yes. And create a $75 bundle if you want BOTH PS Plus and PS Now. This would give people like me who aren't that crazy about PS Now an incentive to take the plunge. But that won't happen. It would make too much sense.

Outlaw19861934d ago

At this price I would do it for sure regardless of how much time I would spend playing these ps3 games.

jujubee881934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )


I'm not the kind of person that can dig a subscription. For me, at least. (But, I know others really want a sub model)

I'd much rather go with a la cart rentals that are tiered along hours/days/weeks/months for under $20 at the max and free trials for the minimum entry to PSNOW.

More choices are always better.

TomahawkX1934d ago

Everyone is complaining about the cost, i'm more concerned about the library and how well Sony will support it. Just look at all the missing PS1, PS2, and PSP titles in the store. I'm still waiting for Legend of Legaia, Suikoden 2, FFVII: Crisis Core, Xenosaga, etc...

WeAreLegion1934d ago

Ask the developers and publishers who created them.

Muzikguy1934d ago

That's my concern as well. When PS3 came out the store was supposed to have all the titles from previous gens. That's what I was led to believe anyway. Then they wonder why emulators are around.... They can't fill the store with games people want so they go find them elsewhere. One game I loved, Intelligent Cube. Where is that?! There's so many more too, but since purchases don't transfer to PS4 it's kind of pointless now

mhunterjr1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

People who are expecting some ps+ like unlimited subscription must not realize how much offering this service will cost Sony. The publishers want their cut too, and they deal differently than the movie studios...

If they are charging $3 to play 1 game for 4hrs now, what are the chances they'll be giving you unlimited access to the entire catalog for $50 a year? The numbers don't add up.

LOGICWINS1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

It should be one LOW annual fee for an all you can eat PS3 game buffet. I understand what you're saying, but these are still OLD games. There are PLENTY of PS4 owners that sold their PS3s. For an extra $25-$50 a year in top of Plus, if I can get cloud versions of PS3 PS Plus games so I can play them on my PS4/cloud versions of EVERY PS3 game I buy on PSN, I'd subscribe to PS Now without question.

Sony could essentially charge people an annual fee for backwards compatibility/ability to play PS3 games on the Vita...and millions would be OKAY with it. Everyone would win. But as I said, Sony is too stupid and out of touch see how this common sense route.

bleedsoe9mm1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

most of these title have zero value to the publishers since they aren't being sold as new except for on digital services . they have much more value to sony to add value to their service and keeping people in their ecosystem . say what you want about EA but they are really smart to get something out of old titles that aren't making them money currently .

mhunterjr1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

I agree that it SHOULD be an all you can eat buffet, I just don't see how it would be economically feasible. They DO want to make money on this.

And publishers are going to let Sony soak up all the profit.

ZombieGamerMan1934d ago

Oh my god that is just the most self entitled garbage I have ever read, if you had an old 30 year old car that you want to get rid of are you going to just handed off to someone cause it's old? No you'll sell it, because it's old don't mean it has no value.

By that same logic Sony should give us all the PSOne & PS2 titles on PSN for free because you know it's old and has no value. Not to mention whatever costs this brings on Sony to have this service running, they can't give you a low yearly fee for all you can eat because they need to make profit.

Not break even but make profit so they can pay their wages, keep their servers up and most importantly put out the best gaming experiences on the market.

For a man with the name logic wins you lack a lot of it.

LOGICWINS1934d ago

Its very clear why you only have two bubbles. You see what you want to see in comments as opposed to what is actually there. Where did I mention anything about wanting to get games for "free"?

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1934d ago
n4gusername1934d ago

Yes, but with older games, 1000 people paying $2, is better than 250 paying $4.

mhunterjr1934d ago (Edited 1934d ago )

Right, but your forgetting that there is a cost associated with running the servers and streaming the games. 1000 people paying $2 would cost Sony more money than 250 people paying $4.

n4gusername1934d ago

Yes, there would be a break point when charting cost versus income. I'm sure they have done their accounting and tried to push the limit. Hopefully they get it right once the Beta is over.