Gaming PlayStation Now Subscription service announced

[Guild McCommunist]

$15-$20/month isn't that great, when OnLive actually did things it was $10/mo for their library (albeit it wasn't nearly as good).

If this gets down to $10/mo or maybe becomes an option of a PS+ bundle (like $100/yr for this and PS+) then I might jump on it. Also no Vita connectivity is a killer.

 

[yoyoyo69]

Nice, I was hoping they'd get around to this. Though I'm a little peeved its not included in PS+, but meh.

As mentioned by others, this is a different service a d was ever going to be included in PS+.

I dislike Sonys strategy though. Introduce a paid online service with included games, then introduce a paid rental service to the same audience.

It was very clear from the beginning that Sony had intentionally, extortionately overpriced the service and used rentals as a beta. They fully expected the backlash, and after reducing the fee to a slightly less extortionate, but still way overpriced fee, people appear to be prepared to pay for it.

On the very, very slim chance that people would have paid for the rip off rentals, they would have stayed.

Games on PS+ were only offered to usher the service in with less backlash when Sony feared going bust/prior to PS4 launch. Now it's standard, it makes any games received on the service worthless if using the now service, so I still expect another announcement to recrectify this.

 

[Vipera]

I feel like this is dangerous: Games are getting the same treatment of music. Unlimited access for a monthly fee? How is this going to be profitable for developers?
I hate to be that guy, but I don't think this is fair towards developers. No game should be able to sell just because inhuman discounts or unlimited subscriptions.

 

[CathyRina]

I feel like this is dangerous: Games are getting the same treatment of music. Unlimited access for a monthly fee? How is this going to be profitable for developers?
I hate to be that guy, but I don't think this is fair towards developers. No game should be able to sell just because inhuman discounts or unlimited subscriptions.

How is steam profitable to developers?

 

[Social_Outlaw]

This should be cheaper, I mean OnLive was way cheaper than this (when I had an account). Sony could've been the Netflix of gaming, but oh well lol. Sony online has been acting up for a while now, and all we get is a mini reward? A price cut would've been better.

 

[aofelix]

$15-$20/month isn't that great, when OnLive actually did things it was $10/mo for their library (albeit it wasn't nearly as good).

If this gets down to $10/mo or maybe becomes an option of a PS+ bundle (like $100/yr for this and PS+) then I might jump on it. Also no Vita connectivity is a killer.

Summarises my thoughts well. This was the service to revitalise the Vita and push it forward with news advertisements showing our beloved PS3 Titles being played on a small ass screen for a small fee.

However Sony have decided to overprice the subscription and restrict it to the PS4 for now. Its going to kill any hype it could have had from casual gamers. Rather than pushing it out with a competitive price and making EVERYONE buy it, they're really making us all think whether its worth it or not. I'd probably end up purchasing it for my VITA if the fee was right and use it once or twice a year as PS+ gives enough native PS vita games to keep me busy with my other consoles.

 

[prowler]

I feel like this is dangerous: Games are getting the same treatment of music. Unlimited access for a monthly fee? How is this going to be profitable for developers?
I hate to be that guy, but I don't think this is fair towards developers. No game should be able to sell just because inhuman discounts or unlimited subscriptions.

You act like developers don't have a say with their games being PS Now.

Plus it's PS3 games for a start, without PS Now they wouldn't be making any money off these games at all unless people buy from PSN.

 

[aofelix]

Yup these are OLD titles for old systems which will probably be sold of my the majority in the next 2-3 years. Developers should be itching to get their old titles out of production out there unless they're planning HD remakes.

 

[KingVamp]

Compare to Netflix where you can only watch movies... It is still kind of pricey. Maybe they should drop it at least $5. I know OnLive got it for $10, but they also barely came back.

 

[CathyRina]

Compare to Netflix where you can only watch movies... It is still kind of pricey. Maybe they should drop it at least $5. I know OnLive got it for $10, but they also barely came back.

you can watch TV Series on netflix too O.o

 

[WiiCube_2013]

190.76 a year including tax -_-'

I usually spend about 200 a year on games, but that usually includes games that have gotten price drops (both temp n perma) and DLCs for games I enjoyed.

On top of that the ps3 has some of the worst servers ever seen. NO THANKS SONY!

Yeah, it's just too much and besides, they could've made the PS1/PS2 emulators from PS3 be ported to the PS4 but we all know that wouldn't be profitable for Sony so it's why PS Now exists.

 

[KingVamp]

you can watch TV Series on netflix too O.o

You took that a bit... too literal. Point is, that Netflix is just for watching campare to this where you get to play.

 

[CathyRina]

You took that a bit... to literal. Point is, that Netflix is just for watching campare to this where you get to play.

Type of Media isn't a good point in comparing prices. It depends on how much you gonna play and how much you get out of your money.
For example last month I watched 7 seasons Big bang theory. If I had to buy them on Bluray I would have had to pay 30€ just for the 7th season but because I watched them in the same month I just spent 8€ on netflix.
If I would buy 1 month of PS Now and would play only 1 game that I could have bought on amazon for 10 bucks then yeah I've wasted money. But If I played 10 games that month that cost 10 bucks each then the one month subscription was more than worth it.

 

[KingVamp]

Type of Media isn't a good point in comparing prices. It depends on how much you gonna play and how much you get out of your money.
For example last month I watched 7 seasons Big bang theory. If I had to buy them on Bluray I would have had to pay 30€ just for the 7th season but because I watched them in the same month I just spent 8€ on netflix.
If I would buy 1 month of PS Now and would play only 1 game that I could have bought on amazon for 10 bucks then yeah I've wasted money. But If I played 10 games that month that cost 10 bucks each then the one month subscription was more than worth it.

Let me put it this way, 10 games played per 1 month $10 vs 10 movies/20 episodes watched per 1 month $10. Which one has better value?

 

[CathyRina]

Let me put it this way, 10 games played per 1 month $10 vs 10 movies/20 episodes watched per 1 month $10. Which one has better value?

I said I watched 7 seasons but okay. I dunno do you like movies but hate games? Netflix is the better value. Do you hate the TV and cinema but love gaming? PS Now is a better value. You see why I say that comparing 2 different types of media isn't a good point?
Ps Now isn't competing with Netflix and Netflix isn't competing with PS Now.

 

[KingVamp]

I said I watched 7 seasons but okay. I dunno do you like movies but hate games? Netflix is the better value. Do you hate the TV and cinema but love gaming? PS Now is a better value. You see why I say that comparing 2 different types of media isn't a good point?
Ps Now isn't competing with Netflix and Netflix isn't competing with PS Now.

I wasn't comparing specific services, your specific watch time nor going with the assumption that a person hate either media or both. (If someone didn't like these media then the prices don't matter and the point is moot.) I didn't think I had to spell that out. I specifically said that way to even them out.

It's like the difference of renting a $60 game vs renting a $20 movie for $10 (and liking both kinds of media).
This is where you go "These games tend to be longer than movies plus there is the cost, so $10 would be better spent on this game." That's obviously not where we are going.

I guess it's my fault for being too vague. Just so you could basely go "what if?" to anything I say.

 

[CathyRina]

I wasn't comparing specific services, your specific watch time nor going with the assumption that a person hate either media or both. (If someone didn't like these media then the prices don't matter and the point is moot.) I didn't think I had to spell that out. I specifically said that way to even them out.

It's like the difference of renting a $60 game vs renting a $20 movie for $10 (and liking both kinds of media).
This is where you go "These games tend to be longer than movies plus there is the cost, so $10 would be better spent on this game." That's obviously not where we are going.

I guess it's my fault for being too vague. Just so you could basely go "what if?" to anything I say.

But that's the thing with such subscription models. You aren't renting 1 single game you are having an all you can eat buffet. Whenever the money is worth it depends on how much you play/watch in that month not whenever the service is cheaper/more expensive than watching movies.

 

[Deleted User]

I'll just buy the games and the original consoles. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

I'll just buy the games and the original consoles. Thanks but no thanks.

I think the whole point of the service just flew over your head.

 

[aofelix]

I wasn't comparing specific services, your specific watch time nor going with the assumption that a person hate either media or both. (If someone didn't like these media then the prices don't matter and the point is moot.) I didn't think I had to spell that out. I specifically said that way to even them out.

It's like the difference of renting a $60 game vs renting a $20 movie for $10 (and liking both kinds of media).
This is where you go "These games tend to be longer than movies plus there is the cost, so $10 would be better spent on this game." That's obviously not where we are going.

I guess it's my fault for being too vague. Just so you could basely go "what if?" to anything I say.

these are not $60 games. More like 5 or 10 max.