PlayStation Now Library as Problematic as the Prices

CCC Says: "The PlayStation Now beta pricing structures are bananas. Nobody is disputing that. It was a problem during the closed beta, so there's no reason to be surprised that it is still an issue during the open beta. However, with all this focus on the PlayStation Now rental prices, people are overlooking something that's just as important: there really aren't any PlayStation Now games worth renting."

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
gamingisnotacrime1534d ago

so many wanabes dont have vision. PS now is in beta phase, the potential for streaming gaming, high quality gaming to non gaming devices like tvs and tablets is brilliant. PS now is a technical masterpiece. game library and prices can be easily improve down the line

DLConspiracy1534d ago

It's cloud based though. Isn't that an ongoing joke to PS fans? I thought it doesn't work. Just teasing btw.

gamingisnotacrime1534d ago

yeah the cloud based jokes are very fanboyish, i am playing ninja gaiden 2 via PS now, a game i played on x360 and PS3 and i can assure u the performance is awesome, im amazed just from a technical view

LazyGoron1534d ago

I think it's because the MS touted "their cloud" as a game-changer for the X1. Almost as if Sony nor any other company would utilize the cloud in an effective way.

To me, that's my issue with MS. They touted Azure servers as some sort of God-send to their system. In reality the cloud will affect the PS4 and X1.

At least to me, that's why I laugh at MS fanboys bragging about Azure servers because it's ignorance to think they (the X1) has something other systems do not. I would never laugh "at the cloud"

Mega241534d ago

There's a difference on how Microsoft taunted their cloud technology, MS was going for Cloud Compute, while Sony went for streaming service like Netflix, except its much more expensive, $4.99 for 4 hours is nuts, but $5 for an entire weeks is good imho. Listen Up Sony, damn it.

BlackTar1871534d ago

it's so stupid that you guys don't even understand the difference in the cloud uses between the 2 companies.

You think it's a snide remark at Fanboys but all you're really doing is showing everyone and the people who agree with you how misinformed you really are and how little you actually apply yourself to the conversation.

DLConspiracy1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )


I did say I was teasing but in all seriousness. It's still cloud. I don't really see why promoting their AZURE dedicated servers as a bad thing. Having enough servers to push games is a huge thing. If what they plan is going to help in the slightest for additional play value (NOT GPU) then I am all for it.

I understand the differences and I am not quite sure what you mean buy "You guys". If you mean "You guys" who lean rather than raise a flag for one side. Then you are spot on. I have both consoles and I like each for different reasons. What makes your comment any more applicable than mine? I was trying to poke fun instead of hating someones preferences.


From all the reports of people who play PS Now. (which i have not felt the urge to pay for btw) they say that the smaller games run fine, but the bigger more CPU/GPU intensive games have lag.

dantesparda1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

Nobody was joking about or clowning cloud streaming, everybody knows that works, its been around for years now, but what MS claimed was cloud computing and thats the joke. Instead of doing like Sony and putting in some extra compute units on the system's GPU, no, they went with this cloud computing instead.


You'd think that people could use their common sense to figure what somebody means, but i guess not around here. Yes, Death, I know that folding @home is cloud computing and i know that cloud computing itself is not a "joke" and has real applications, but thus far, none really for what MS is claiming and that's the joke. And you know this. You, just like DL are being all hopeful-wishy because youse are MS fans so want it to work but i know even you guys know that its not really practial right now, not impossible but not practical at all. The bandwidth and latencies are no where near good enough for most games, except maybe very slow paced games. Now stop with the nonsense, and why cant people understand each other on this gaming sites instead of always trying to fight?

Death1534d ago

[email protected] is cloud compute. Why is it a joke? Because we haven't seen practical applications in gaming? So for cloud compute to be taken seriously, there has to be an existing application or it won't work? Sony is the first to bring cloud based gaming which eliminates consoles and are applauded for it, Microsoft wants to enhance consoles with cloud compute and it's a joke?

Cloud compute is very real, but it is in it's infancy. Over time we will see how it integrates with and enhances console gaming. We simply aren't there yet, but it is happening behind the scenes. It is also worth saying anyone can do it, it's just that Microsoft already made the investment and are ahead.

Deadpoolio1534d ago

No it's an ongoing joke because Xbots are morons and say retarded things like the cloud will help the X1 graphically, because they're too stupid to understand that Azure doesn't function with the GPU of anything and has ZERO potential for graphics...It's just as stupid as that mister X idiot who is still pushing that there is a second secret GPU in the X1

DLConspiracy1534d ago


Using gaming slurs like Xbots is kind of counter productive in your statement. Same goes for those using Sony Pony or any other sort of down speak.

As far as Cloud is concerned, I am more curious about making the gameplay a much deeper experience than what we are limited to locally/physically.

mwjw6961534d ago

@Deadpoolio Just because you are not smart enough to understand how a car engine works, or the Higgs boson particle can not be seen does not mean they do not function or exist. So keep on speculating about information you will never understand. Ill give you a clue its not magic.

You sad little people still bring up MrX. That's almost sad.

user56695101533d ago

Didn't OnLive do cloud base gaming and everyone on this site shunned it. Just saying. Is OnLive still alive.

+ Show (8) more repliesLast reply 1533d ago
mhunterjr1534d ago

No. People are very excited for the vision. Most are excited by the potential.... The problem is the execution, and there is little reason to believe that will improve any time soon.

M1GO1533d ago

If by "execution" you mean the actual streaming of the games, it's done pretty well, provided that you have a good enough network connection. I rented a game and it ran perfectly fine except for maybe 1 minor hiccup where input lagged for about a second.

If by "execution" you mean the marketing, pricing and branding of the product, I wholeheartedly agree. Making potential customers pay for what they're calling a "Beta" without any sort of limited trial is a terrible idea. Why not instead try to win over people by giving them a free 4 hour trial to test out how the game service works instead. We really shouldn't be paying to be guinea pigs here.

TheFanboySlayer1534d ago

They just announced that there will be a Subscription model so I'm waiting to hear what that is before I decide whether it is a good deal.

I think they game pricing should be this
0.99$ for 4 hours for 3+ years old game
1.99$ for 4 hours for 2 years old game
2.99$ for 4 hours for 1 year old game
and get more expensive the more recently released the game is but nothing over $6.00 for 4 hours

$40-$50 a year for subscription I would say...

That's just my opinion but idk..I'll probably get disagrees for this

All in all I suggest everybody criticize Sony for the prices but hold of judgement on the service until release

Fanci1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

Everyone is wanting a "subscription model" option but I don't understand how that could possibly work for Sony. Paying $40-$50 a year to play 100+ games for free? That's a ridiculously low price, however I don't believe gamers would be willing to pay the necessary $100-$150+/year minimum. This whole thing seem's like a complete loose/loose for Sony. The only way this will work is if they scrap most of the renting business, and go with standard $15 or so (depending on the game obviously) to allow unlimited play forever, just like a digital purchase on the PlayStation Store.

EDIT: If you're talking about $40-$50/year for just one game, this doesn't really apply, but I still think that playing $40-$50 a year would be stupid, they should definitely have an option just to buy the game, no expiration dates.

Kavorklestein1533d ago (Edited 1533d ago )

Yeah, I don't expect the pricing to really improve much, and here's why... They need to make their money back from purchasing Gaikai, and they need all the supplemental income based on cheaper methods than CURRENT GEN development that they can.

Console IS being sold at a profit, but that's not gonna solve all their problems by itself. Games' sales on PS4 are doing fine, but sony doesn't get as much from games being sold as you might think, AND if they can sell rentals of old stuff at little to no cost to them at these insane "we hope our fanbase's love of nostalgia will do all the work for us" pricing- with little to no games that are actually MUST HAVES or MUST PLAYS from the past, then you just have a flop waiting to happen. Sony needs to be realistic and fair... these are ancient and non essential games we're talking about, and the prices further the idea that it's not really something gamers will feel like they "Need" If they can get the pricing right however, and get the MAJORITY of their classic libraries up and running, then this would be a whole other gig.

I think it could be great, but whoever is in charge of what's being implemented so far, should be crucified on a mountain of first edition factory refurbished PS2's.

TheFanboySlayer1533d ago

lol yea u guys may be right! but yea we'll wait and see what the official prices are after the beta.

darkstar181534d ago

The sad part is ppl will still rent the games and claim its a good "Deal" just because Sony says so..its only going to get worse.

marlinfan101534d ago

"$4 for 4 hours of a game that cost $7 to buy? THANKS SONY! this is awesome!"

alwayzbusi11534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

$4 for 4 hours is f***Ing amazing when you don't have to own the console the game is on. Your $7 won't do squat for you without a $200 PS3 will it?

Ippiki Okami1534d ago

"$4 for 4 hours of a game that cost $7 to buy? THANKS SONY! this is awesome!"

Its now 1.99 retard. Sony is changing this for the next stage of the beta. The prices will keep going down as long as people give feedback.

Transporter471534d ago

Speak with your wallet then. If it cost $7 to buy then buy it. What is the problem? Nobody is forcing you to pay or rent that game.

Death1534d ago

"Its now 1.99 retard"

For select titles.

As for the price going down, maybe, maybe not. Sony has internal revenue projections for the service. If they can maintain higher costs and hit them, why would they change? If the costs are half as much, they need to target twice as many customers to reach their goals. The idea isn't to get as many people on the service as possible, the goal is to make money with each game streamed.

Revolver_X_1534d ago

Maybe I dont wanna buy the game. I can conveniently rent this game for $7 for 7 days. I can save gas spent to go buy it plus to trade it in when Im done, and its half the price of Gamestop's pre-owned asking price. This is just one of the many fair prices on PSNOW. Btw, your running out of straws.

marlinfan101534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )


don't get me wrong, theres a few good games on there. ive even mentioned that one specifically in earlier comments. for the most part though the prices are pretty damn bad IMO. "running out of straws" why because I'm complaining about the prices? maybe we should all just say the prices are great so they'll never change them. great idea. if they're charging prices like this for games that are years old, what are the prices gonna be when they start releasing newer games?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1534d ago
iamnsuperman1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

Do you remember how PlayStation Plus started? You probably don't but it wasn't that good at all. The titles were old and a lot of people already had them. Now look at it. My point is services of this nature that have the scope to change this industry take time to develop. This is partly down to getting publishers used to the idea. I suspect the service to pick up one last generation system sales plummet /no more software comes out for those systems.

@below. Get it out of your head that Now and EA access are the same thing. They are not. It is supid to even think they are (I mean come on. Really? It is clear as day that EA access devalues Plus not Now) Secondly publishers are controlling the price. Sony gave them control to get the on board. It takes time for both parties to realise other option. Thirdly it will take time for titles to come to the service since, guess what, publishers still have a lot of control and not much faith. The faith takes time

darkstar181534d ago

how long did it take for PS plus to actually become something useful with value? Why do we need to to wait for for Sony to realize that they are screwing over their fans? Why do you think theh turned down that EA service? They want this BS to be your only option for those not smart enough to know they are getting cheated and ripped off..but i guess greatness awaits..

marlinfan101534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

like dark said

why do we need to wait? they're charging us for it now so I'm gonna say something about it now. if they don't want me complaining then take the price tag off the games until the service is ready to be fully released. they can't put up ridiculous prices, and just say "oh its a beta, don't mind the prices". they'll still happily take my money for it.

and he's not comparing ea access and ps now, he's saying sony turned it down so they can eventually charge you more on their service. it takes money out of their pocket, thats why they turned it down, not because its a bad deal for gamers.

iamnsuperman1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )


You misunderstand. I don't mind you complaining and it is good you are. But darkstar18 had the nerve to say nothing will change. I am saying it will as it did with Plus.

"and he's not comparing ea access and ps now, he's saying sony turned it down so they can eventually charge you more on their service. it takes money out of their pocket, thats why they turned it down, not because its a bad deal for gamers"

I didn't realise plus went up in price /s look Now is offering something EA could never offer which is back catalogue of older systems. I have said this before but Now isn't for us until it appears on smart phones/tablets (since most probably kept their PS3). The service is being used to control the micro console market because it is a service that doesnt require one. Remember this is a beta service and what is the best way to make people try it out is by using their big new console

Also EA is trying to take money away from both you and the platform holders because the big EA games require gold anyway to play online. Your going to have to pay for two services to get battlefield 4 for free (works the same as gwg as you need to keep up the subscription to play the game)

Darkstares1534d ago (Edited 1534d ago )

EA Access does not devalue PS+. Tying online multiplayer behind a paywall through PS+ is what's conflicting. What EA Access is trying to do is offer a subscription model for EA only games. PS+ does not offer access to games 5 days in advance and as far as I know no EA games have ever had a discount day of release through PS+. You need to separate the two. IF all EA games don't interest you then of course the service will never be on interest. However their library simply dwarfs most if not all publishers out there so eventually they are likely to have at least a few games people are interested in.

As for Playstation Now those games are simply bargain bin games which means the pricing model needs to be dirt cheap or at the very least also a subscription model for full access at a reasonable price. It's also Sony's way of screwing the consumer by no initiation any longer to offer backwards compatibility. They have slowly gotten away from that over the years and instead created this service and also HD remasters to fill in that void while making more money in the process.

Death1534d ago

Why do you think Plus will continue to go on like it did on the PS3? So far on the PS4 it has been mainly indie titles. Plus is now mandatory if you want to play online. The "free" games offered will conflict with PSNow's rental service. If anything the value in Plus has gone down with the PS4. Still a great value of you have a PS3/PSP/Vita though.

trouble_bubble1531d ago

I got Journey a week early through Plus. Haven't bought an EA game in about as long. If BF3/BF4 online were anything to go by, you'll just be disappointed a week before everyone else.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1531d ago
SpinalRemains1381534d ago


I haven't seen anyone yet claim the prices are a good deal.

M1GO1533d ago

The 7 day and 30 day options are decent deals if you're able to finish the game in that timeframe. The 4 hour option is laughable, and the 90 day option is a terrible deal unless it takes you 3 months to beat a game, and you don't own a PS3 to play a used copy on instead..

The current library has some really head-scratching games, like the Telltale Back to the Future and Sam & Max episodic games. Why anyone would spend to stream those episodes, when they can be had on PS3 or Steam to own for about the same price or lower is beyond me. I guess it's more for those who don't own a PS3 or a PC/Mac...

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1531d ago
Eonjay1534d ago

I actually really enjoyed Final Fantasy XIII-2.
It is worth playing.

polow got sol1534d ago

I agree with the article, really a lackluster line up.

SynestheticRoar1534d ago

It's sorry in beta form, right now. Hopefully it will be better in final phase.

Show all comments (60)
The story is too old to be commented.