Playstation Now beta service review.

[Godmachine]

Alright so I rented a game for $2.99 for 4 hours (that is the most I'm willing to spend for such an absurdly short amount of time) and what follows are my impressions of playing and using PS Now.

Game : Enslaved: Odyssey to the West

So the actual buying process is painless and really nothing to report that would be of any use. However PSN tests your connection before you complete your transaction so at least that's good for the less technically inclined versus allowing you to rent and then possibly not be able to stream well enough to be playable. I picked this game because its a nice mix of action and puzzle solving so it serves both sides of the spectrum for gamers who will want fast paced games and those who only care about non-twitch genres.

First off its pretty fast , you get right to the opening credits within about 15-20 seconds (this will vary I'm sure from connection to connection based on quality) and right off the bat the service brings up an overlay menu to remind you that the touchpad also functions as "Select" and "Start" with "Select" being on the left and "Start" being to the right. Simple enough right? Right.

So I load up the game and first off and lets get this out in the open the codec Sony uses is probably one of the best I've seen for a streaming service that isn't local. But and this is a big BUT (heh) its not up to par with the quality of my connection. Sony could bump up the bit rate without putting anything in jeopardy and from what I can tell the codec is doing about 3 mbps at best. Not very promising honestly as I expected Sony to at least commit to 5 Mbps standard. You should have 5 Mbps standard in many parts of the country and if you don't you likely have data caps so this service doesn't interest you anyway. Its a minor gripe right now considering PS Now is in beta but it better get solved overtime or people will complain.

Onto controls. So the input latency is there , you can't physically not have input latency streaming like this through the internet. Just not possible with the current infrastructure , its MUCH better than say Onlive (which is unplayable frankly) but I wish they could figure out a solution to deal with input latency. For those that don't know what that means it means the input from your action on the controller sent to their servers then processed and then a reaction on your screen of that input is played out in the game , its absolutely critical to playing a video game. For the puzzle solving parts of the game this was only a minor issue but for the moments when you are being chased and every reaction makes or breaks the success of that escape its just laggy and for some probably not acceptable. This will of course vary person to person due to personal preferences.

Connection quality. So I never got disconnected but I did notice that my "Select" and "Start" keys were not working at all. No matter what I did , including restart the game stream , nothing made them work. I'll just call that a beta bug but its another important fix frankly as I could not pause the game which was aggravating. I'm lucky in the sense that my connection is solid but I would imagine under lesser conditions this will certainly come into play. But for now as long as your connection is solid then so is Sony's. A side note : If you leave the game idle for awhile Sony kicks you off to make more room for other players (or so they claim..) so you can't really just leave the game running and not that you would want to at this price point.

Which brings me to final and truly damning problem with this service.. the absolutely mental cost. Renting a game for 4 hours for $2.99? That is robbery pure and simple. Renting a game for $49.99 for 90 days that you could buy used from Ebay for $5 dollars? Fucking insane. Sony better straighten the fuck up and soon with this pricing system as it completely destroys the potential of it entirely. I just can't grasp why anyone would spend that kind of money for hours of play at a time? You can buy a used PS3 for probably $75 on Ebay and then buy the actual game for $5 then play it for the next few decades (in theory) until the system is dead forever and furthermore once you buy a PS3 you have access to its entire library on the cheap! Why on Earth even for convenience sake would you pay Sony for a game that came out in 2010 $49 to rent it for any length of time?

Bottom Line : Should you use this service? No. Buy the system required and enjoy the entire library of games for much cheaper and without rental periods.

 

[Babbster]

It's a scam, pure and simple. With this service, they can tell prospective PS4 buyers that PS3 games can be played on that system. They can also tell owners of other "smart" Sony products that they're basically getting a PS3 with their new TV.

The more I think about it, the more I think that they don't actually want gamers to use the service - the more "serious" gamers (the type who'll put lots of hours into each game) who use the service, the bigger their overhead is. That's probably key to why the prices are ridiculous.

I will note one thing in response to your concern over how much bandwidth they use/can use: My sister's house has a pretty nice connection (for the area): They get well over 20 Mbps down and over 3 Mbps up...not Google Fiber of course but solid. Anyway, they also have up to 3 devices streaming video at any given time along with 3 more devices (tablets, phones, etc.) doing other things with the connection. Adding a constant 5 Mbps d/l stream to that would probably knock down the quality of one or more of the video streams. It would be fine for someone like me who lives alone and I'd still be able to run Netflix or the like on another screen, but for a home with 3 or more people all wanting to use the Internet at the same time the connection become congested a lot faster.

 

[Godmachine]

It's a scam, pure and simple. With this service, they can tell prospective PS4 buyers that PS3 games can be played on that system. They can also tell owners of other "smart" Sony products that they're basically getting a PS3 with their new TV.

The more I think about it, the more I think that they don't actually want gamers to use the service - the more "serious" gamers (the type who'll put lots of hours into each game) who use the service, the bigger their overhead is. That's probably key to why the prices are ridiculous.

I will note one thing in response to your concern over how much bandwidth they use/can use: My sister's house has a pretty nice connection (for the area): They get well over 20 Mbps down and over 3 Mbps up...not Google Fiber of course but solid. Anyway, they also have up to 3 devices streaming video at any given time along with 3 more devices (tablets, phones, etc.) doing other things with the connection. Adding a constant 5 Mbps d/l stream to that would probably knock down the quality of one or more of the video streams. It would be fine for someone like me who lives alone and I'd still be able to run Netflix or the like on another screen, but for a home with 3 or more people all wanting to use the Internet at the same time the connection become congested a lot faster.

Yea but I'm talking about scaling. They should scale the connection better to suit your level of speed (I'm at 150mbps down and 150mbps up) and that doesn't appear to be what Sony does. Instead its entirely standard. I can understand the concerns but really for what they are charging they should have higher standards.

And I agree with your sentiment about it not being for hardcore gamers but people know when a game is almost 5 years old that it shouldn't cost $49.99 for a 90 day rental.

 

[Babbster]

Yea but I'm talking about scaling. They should scale the connection better to suit your level of speed (I'm at 150mbps down and 150mbps up) and that doesn't appear to be what Sony does. Instead its entirely standard. I can understand the concerns but really for what they are charging they should have higher standards.

Yeah, for the price the tech they're using should be ridonk. Though even if it was, the cost/benefit ratio would still be poor.

And I agree with your sentiment about it not being for hardcore gamers but people know when a game is almost 5 years old that it shouldn't cost $49.99 for a 90 day rental.

Meh. "People" is too broad a term.

Seriously, though, my mom bought a 360 for my nephews a couple months ago, after I told her it was too early to buy an Xbox One/PS4 and the kids didn't want the WiiU. Being an indulgent grandmother, they asked if she would buy them a couple games from the Xbox Live online store and she did. If she hadn't told me and if I hadn't then educated her (particularly on the fact that they live 5 blocks from a used game store), she would have never realized that she spent a lot more money than she needed to. The kids, of course, aren't really comparison shoppers since they're too young to have real money of their own and they don't go shopping (outside Steam and Google Play) for games.

 

[Godmachine]

Yeah, for the price the tech they're using should be ridonk. Though even if it was, the cost/benefit ratio would still be poor.

Meh. "People" is too broad a term.

Seriously, though, my mom bought a 360 for my nephews a couple months ago, after I told her it was too early to buy an Xbox One/PS4 and the kids didn't want the WiiU. Being an indulgent grandmother, they asked if she would buy them a couple games from the Xbox Live online store and she did. If she hadn't told me and if I hadn't then educated her (particularly on the fact that they live 5 blocks from a used game store), she would have never realized that she spent a lot more money than she needed to. The kids, of course, aren't really comparison shoppers since they're too young to have real money of their own and they don't go shopping (outside Steam and Google Play) for games.

Oh I don't mean the general public. The general public are statistically absolute morons I mean for anyone that considers themselves an informed "gamer". Some of the games have reasonable pricing but the vast majority do not plus the library is pretty small. I think it'll take years for this service to flesh out and the pricing , obviously , will have to reflect that maturing.

When this service launches on Sony branded TV's and such they will probably have the "general public" paying more than they should but without "gamers" to stick around the service will lose its novelty and longevity.

 

[HisSvt76]

If they offered this like Netflix call it $8 a month $99 a year they'd roll in the money easy but right now it is a horrible value and only fools should would fall for it.

 

[Godmachine]

If they offered this like Netflix call it $8 a month $99 a year they'd roll in the money easy but right now it is a horrible value and only fools should would fall for it.

Indeed. But I don't think the cost of maintaining the cloud service for this would make it worth their wild. Right now they obviously are aiming for pure greed factor.

 

[next-Jin]

The pricing has to be based on the IP owners. They are not all 40 dollars for 90 days. Sonys games are more reasonable Twisted Metal and Killzone 3 iirc. The 4 hour rentals should go away and they should stick with 7 and 30 days. Change the time to be game time and not real time.

 

[Derangel]

The pricing has to be based on the IP owners. They are not all 40 dollars for 90 days. Sonys games are more reasonable Twisted Metal and Killzone 3 iirc. The 4 hour rentals should go away and they should stick with 7 and 30 days. Change the time to be game time and not real time.

What Sony really should have done from the get go is set standard pricing across the board and not allowed publishers to decide prices on their own. Instead of actually doing the intelligent and reasonable thing Sony has effectively killed PS Now before it's even out of beta. How much do you want to bet that if Sony ever gets a subscription service for it up it will be way too damn expensive and Sony will allow publishers to decide if they want to allow their games to be part of the sub service or not?

 

[next-Jin]

What Sony really should have done from the get go is set standard pricing across the board and not allowed publishers to decide prices on their own. Instead of actually doing the intelligent and reasonable thing Sony has effectively killed PS Now before it's even out of beta. How much do you want to bet that if Sony ever gets a subscription service for it up it will be way too damn expensive and Sony will allow publishers to decide if they want to allow their games to be part of the sub service or not?

Is that not the whole point of it being in Beta? I'm not entirely sure why they call it Beta, it should be called Paid Beta but it does give publishers a good idea of what they should price their titles at. I'm certain Sony will share the numbers across the board to give them a better understanding of what they are getting themselves into.

What I am expecting is that a tiered pricing plan will ultimately come of it where they saw the most rentals and their respective prices and rental periods.

I think the 5-7 dollar rentals for 7 days is reasonable personally. I'd never do the 4 hr or 30/60/90 day options.

Also I'm pretty sure Sony wants to make this service open to anyone with a smart device. Not just Sony hardware but everything under the sun with the specs to support it. They are just rolling out the service with their own stuff first.

That might have changed but that was their goal awhile ago.

 

[Godmachine]

Is that not the whole point of it being in Beta? I'm not entirely sure why they call it Beta, it should be called Paid Beta but it does give publishers a good idea of what they should price their titles at. I'm certain Sony will share the numbers across the board to give them a better understanding of what they are getting themselves into.

What I am expecting is that a tiered pricing plan will ultimately come of it where they saw the most rentals and their respective prices and rental periods.

I think the 5-7 dollar rentals for 7 days is reasonable personally. I'd never do the 4 hr or 30/60/90 day options.

Also I'm pretty sure Sony wants to make this service open to anyone with a smart device. Not just Sony hardware but everything under the sun with the specs to support it. They are just rolling out the service with their own stuff first.

That might have changed but that was their goal awhile ago.

I too agree that 5-7 dollars for 7 day rental is perfectly acceptable but those other options got to go. And the library needs a lot more titles to justify interest plus there should be a monthly sub option for a large grouping of titles. As it stands right now the library is pitifully small. It seems they also run some kind of native emulation software on their servers so it shouldn't be hard to put up quite a few more games in short order.

I'm sure Sony is attempting to entice publishers but its also turning off lots of consumers that enjoy its products and play games. Yes , there will be the people who have a Sony smart device that will want to play games but remember unless their device comes with a Playstation 3 controller they will have to go out and buy one. I don't know many "casual" users that are willing to dump $39.99 (or whatever they want to used be it new or used or third party) up front for a controller if they don't have to so there is a cost of entry outside of the device itself. Sony has gone on record to say a PS3 controller and Sony branded smart device are required so it won't attract the desirable "casual" market quite the way some people think it will.

PS Now will until accepted by the wider gaming audience will just be a curiosity until its pricing reflects reality. If Sony doesn't fuck it up they could have something interesting going on.

 

[Canon]

I wanted to give this a try but the pricing structure for all the games I looked at really turned me off. The fact that they don't seem to have any kind of demonstration area of sorts also surprises me. Personally I didn't feel like spending any money to try something that is "beta". That's just silliness. (PS. I give props to the OP for stepping up and trying it, really do appreciate hearing a first hand experience).

As others have said (across the Internet), your better off grabbing a used copy of the game you want and loading it up on a real PS3... Personally I still own my PS3 and it works great, so unless this service became more of a subscription based service (ie: Netflix), I really don't have much interest.

 

[SeymourGore]

The $2.99 for four hours seems like it'd be better suited for hotel guests in hotel rooms equipped with Sony TVs. If Blockbuster was still around I bet you wouldn't see pricing schemes like this attempted on the general public.

 

[VladDracule]

Yea but I'm talking about scaling. They should scale the connection better to suit your level of speed (I'm at 150mbps down and 150mbps up) and that doesn't appear to be what Sony does. Instead its entirely standard. I can understand the concerns but really for what they are charging they should have higher standards.

And I agree with your sentiment about it not being for hardcore gamers but people know when a game is almost 5 years old that it shouldn't cost $49.99 for a 90 day rental.

How the hell do you have 150 mbps up/down? Im paying through the noes with 50 mbps down and 15 up

 

[refraxion]

Terrible pricing. Should be a monthly sub and get the entire catalogue.

 

[Babbster]

How the hell do you have 150 mbps up/down? Im paying through the noes with 50 mbps down and 15 up

Not to answer for Godmachine but if I had to guess, if it's in the US, it's probably a commercial connection.

When we say we can only get <x> speed, if we're in any urban or close-in suburban area, what that actually means is that we can only get <x> speed for a reasonable consumer-level price (meaning pretty much anything under $100/month). Options increase greatly if you have a business that requires much higher speeds and you're willing to pay premium prices.

 

[Ur_Mom]

I can rent a brand new game from Redbox for a day for $2. Why is it for an old game is $2.99 for 4 hours? Ridiculous. I know it costs money for the infrastructure, but this is insane.

Too little for too much $$. :/ Can't see myself doing this at all. Monthly sub for a larger catalog? Yes. Individual titles for high prices? Nope.

 

[refraxion]

How the hell do you have 150 mbps up/down? Im paying through the noes with 50 mbps down and 15 up

I'm paying about $95 for 100mb down and 5 MB up. Wish I had better upload speeds.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

lol, I pay $80/mo for ~13 down and 0.8 up. Furthermore, it's the ONLY provider available, outside of going to a satellite-based service. That's how it is for huge swaths of the US, pretty much anywhere that's not inside or near urban centers.

Services like Playstation Now and Onlive are completely out of reach for people like me.

 

[Godmachine]

Not to answer for Godmachine but if I had to guess, if it's in the US, it's probably a commercial connection.

When we say we can only get <x> speed, if we're in any urban or close-in suburban area, what that actually means is that we can only get <x> speed for a reasonable consumer-level price (meaning pretty much anything under $100/month). Options increase greatly if you have a business that requires much higher speeds and you're willing to pay premium prices.

Its FIOS actually so resident. Verizon just upped everyone to same download/upload packages for free.

 

[refraxion]

I was pretty happy to hear Verizon was supposed to go Canada for eventual FiOS. But that never happened. Blah Canadian prices are garbage, hah

 

[Derangel]

I was pretty happy to hear Verizon was supposed to go Canada for eventual FiOS. But that never happened. Blah Canadian prices are garbage, hah

Verizon was supposed to do a lot of things with FiOS before giving up and deciding it was more profitable to be a terrible company instead.

 

[refraxion]

Can't be much worse than rogers bell or telus here. Shaw competition would be sweet.

 

[Babbster]

Its FIOS actually so resident. Verizon just upped everyone to same download/upload packages for free.

Then you are truly one of the FCC's chosen.

 

[Godmachine]

Then you are truly one of the FCC's chosen.

Oh please , Verizon will happily begin to fuck me over if Net Neutrality gets fucked. They will offer "fast lane" access within a year of that I bet. I'm enjoying the speeds now but I pay through my ass. Google Fiber gives 1Gbps down and up for $70 a month which just beats the shit out of what I have. Those people are truly the chosen. Even then they get spied on by Google I'm sure. Verizon hasn't been outed for spying on its FiOS traffic .. at least not in public.

Also to add another point to my review :

Input latency means more to even the casual user when used in conjunction with cloud gaming like PS Now. Seriously if you have a high input latency TV/Monitor you are going to be even more frustrated by the added delay. I had a friend try out my rental , who basically doesn't touch games and even he mentioned that he felt a weird "lag" when I put my TV into movie mode (which is like 65ms of latency which isn't even that high compared to other modern sets that can dwarf it by double that) which I feel represents the average input latency many regular users would experience.

When I switched my PS4 to by practically input latency free BenQ (its about 3ms versus my TV in movie mode) he said that it was much more usable and something he wouldn't mind using on a consistent basis.

So normally not something the average user will think about might actually come into play with the success of this service.

 

[elzeus]

Verizon was supposed to do a lot of things with FiOS before giving up and deciding it was more profitable to be a terrible company instead.

Did comcast cut a deal with them basically paying them not to expand out westward from the east coast?

 

[Godmachine]

Did comcast cut a deal with them basically paying them not to expand out westward from the east coast?

No. Verizon decided to sell lots of its user base to Frontier and basically ditch the expansion in favor of LTE expansion since they can charge a ton more versus hardwired Internet.

Verizon is actually in several lawsuits because of their failure to fulfill obligations with both installs and to repair Hurricane Sandy damage.

 

[Derangel]

No. Verizon decided to sell lots of its user base to Frontier and basically ditch the expansion in favor of LTE expansion since they can charge a ton more versus hardwired Internet.

Verizon is actually in several lawsuits because of their failure to fulfill obligations with both installs and to repair Hurricane Sandy damage.

Not to mention they were a big force in killing net neutrality, are a driving force behind "fast lanes", and refuse to honor their agreement with Netflix despite Netflix paying them. Verizon very quickly went from one of the "good guys" to making AT&T look good in comparison.

 

[Comixbooks]

Gamers want staying power so renting like renting weapons in Warface isn't the way to go.

 

[bigdogchris]

A few years ago Sony patented software emulation to play PS1 and PS2 games on different hardware. They've never done anything with that technology.

The rumor is that because Sony is not offering PS1 and PS2 games on PS Now, and essentially are refusing to comment on why they are not offering them, the speculation is they are adding that software based backwards compatibility to PS4.

 

[Godmachine]

A few years ago Sony patented software emulation to play PS1 and PS2 games on different hardware. They've never done anything with that technology.

The rumor is that because Sony is not offering PS1 and PS2 games on PS Now, and essentially are refusing to comment on why they are not offering them, the speculation is they are adding that software based backwards compatibility to PS4.

Makes perfect sense. I'm sure they'll announce it as a "feature" during some conference. Sony also had a glitch recently that allowed people to buy PS1 games on the Vita , like a vast library. They quickly "fixed" that glitch in the store and now its back to a limited selection.

 

[bigdogchris]

Makes perfect sense. I'm sure they'll announce it as a "feature" during some conference. Sony also had a glitch recently that allowed people to buy PS1 games on the Vita , like a vast library. They quickly "fixed" that glitch in the store and now its back to a limited selection.

The software emulation, I'm guessing, will be a premium feature that requires PSN+.