PlayStation Now Is Still Way Too Expensive

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Let's see here, you can rent a bunch of old games for $50 each for 90 days.....or you can buy five times that amount of games on Steam and you will own them forever. I'm not a mathematician but I think gaming on the PC is a better deal. ;)

Right now, on your PlayStation 4, you can enjoy 90 days of the PS3 racing game F1 2013 for the low, low price of $49.99. Too rich for your blood? You could try 90 days of NASCAR 14 for $39.99, or 90 days of Dirt 3 for $26.99. Codemasters' Grid 2 comes in at the relatively affordable $22.99—also for 90 days.
 

CoSWill

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 30, 2002
Messages
112
I think that deal is ok Sony, because that deal is about 75 days longer than I'd play those games anyway...lol.
 

maverikv

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 31, 2003
Messages
1,992
With Steam Big Picture mode and wireless 360 controllers, this console generation is a total waste anyway
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2005
Messages
713
I thought the big thing about PS Now was the fact that you didn't have to download the full game, you just streamed the game
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,594
Wait - so you're RENTING those games for more than you can buy them at Gamestop? Or am I not reading that right (can't hit the site due to work)?

I don't see how this is an attractive deal. Even without Steam as competition, it still sucks. :/
 

Exavior

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
9,700
Wait - so you're RENTING those games for more than you can buy them at Gamestop? Or am I not reading that right (can't hit the site due to work)?

I don't see how this is an attractive deal. Even without Steam as competition, it still sucks. :/

Correct, the point of PS Now is that you can stream PS 3 or PS 2 or PS Vita games to your PlayStation 4 or to a Sony TV without any game console.

That is their solution for backward compatibility.

In theory it sounds nice, but the cost is nowhere near acceptable for such a service for most people. just to buy a used PS3 and buy the used games if you want to play them that badly, it would be far cheaper than the cost to rent these games just to not have the older console.
 

Ur_Mom

Fully [H]
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
20,594
Correct, the point of PS Now is that you can stream PS 3 or PS 2 or PS Vita games to your PlayStation 4 or to a Sony TV without any game console.

That is their solution for backward compatibility.

In theory it sounds nice, but the cost is nowhere near acceptable for such a service for most people. just to buy a used PS3 and buy the used games if you want to play them that badly, it would be far cheaper than the cost to rent these games just to not have the older console.

Sounds great. Price is the deal breaker. Add it to PS+, and it'd be a hit. $30-50 a game to rent for 90 days, even if it's backwards compatible, fuck that. I'll spend 2 games price to buy a used PS3 and probably the used game and have a good time. Then other games would be cheap.
 

Dekoth-E-

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
7,599
You are renting both basically, so no I don't particularly see either as an attractive deal. I frankly wouldn't pay more than about $15 for any digital only game that is nothing more than a rental until they decide I no longer get to access.
 

Advil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
2,036
Are they out of their minds?

It should be $50 a year for access to the WHOLE BACK CATALOG.
 

tesfaye

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 17, 2003
Messages
3,421
PPV is about the only digital "rental" I'll tolerate, and I rarely purchase any PPV content. I'd never sign up for this.
 

lilbabycat

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 21, 2011
Messages
3,810
Its so strange that Kotaku starts putting out all these "Sony's PSN is a terrible deal" right after EA announces its new sub plan (which still requires Xbox Live) ... its almost as if EA / MS are paying them to do it....
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
Its so strange that Kotaku starts putting out all these "Sony's PSN is a terrible deal" right after EA announces its new sub plan (which still requires Xbox Live) ... its almost as if EA / MS are paying them to do it....

Does the timing of it affect the utter trash pricing from Sony? I think not
 

face2palm

Gawd
Joined
Sep 16, 2011
Messages
578
Does the timing of it affect the utter trash pricing from Sony? I think not

Exactly. No one would need to be paid to realize how retarded the pricing scheme is on this.

And for the record, EA's subscription service is a vastly better deal than this crap.
 

Kazzanova

Weaksauce
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
108
This is why i always keep my old systems hahaha... So much cheaper to play the games on ps2 or ps, or dreamcast/etc then to buy reboots/blah blah. Everything since my SNES is still chugging along strong! I even break out the ps2 a couple times a year for Everblue 2
 

Stiletto

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
6,433
This is a joke, right? Who the fuck would pay rental prices that average 2/3 of the purchase price of the game?
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
$49 for 90 days heh. I wonder if console users actually believe this is a fair price. what kind of person buys would do this, and why
 

Ashbringer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
5,522
No chit.

#1 You have to rent each game.
#2 You have to pay a monthly fee just to play the games you rent.
#3 The games will have input lag. No way around this.
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
You know what method i would pay for to play ps3 games? A first part supported emulator for a fair price ~85 and ROM prices for ~10-20 a pop at the most.

Im not saying i would actually pay for that, but it would be a much much better solution than this shit
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,931
Let us know when they offer something like FF Tactics at 5 bucks for life.

Maybe they are trying to limit the number of concurrent users as a ways to ease into the technology on the server end. Or they are trying to get rid of PS3 stock.
 

Youn

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,931
IMO 30 bucks for FFXII-2 90 days isn't too bad. It's likely if bought on it's own it would take that long to complete and then shelved forever.
 

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
23,948
There is no way I would pay almost full price just to rent a game. That is insane...
 

MrSneis

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,716
I had no idea about this. Sounds REALLY asnine to me. PS Plus for $50/year I feel is s great value. PS Now on the other hand seems like a half-baked attempt to provide game streaming service that someone had to push through at Sony just because. They should just make PS Now a side-benefit of PS Plus.
 

Snowknight26

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,388
IMO 30 bucks for FFXII-2 90 days isn't too bad. It's likely if bought on it's own it would take that long to complete and then shelved forever.

Except that you can get it (assuming you mean FFXIII-2) for under $20.
 

MrSneis

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,716
Did some more reading and I think I'm starting to see how Sony thinks it's a decent idea. The key is that Sony bought Gaikai for $380M so they really need to make something out of the investment one way or another even if it was a dumb move.

It's still super screwed as far as I can see it. Would be cool if as a PS Plus subscriber you get to check out one game at a time or something along those lines as a bonus. Still glad I never jumped on the current gen consoles.

Interesting points:
-Renting a movie on Play Store or Amazon is not exactly a bargain either - you're paying for convenience
-Redbox? People are still willing to pay more the convenience of online rental versus $1.50 physical blu ray rental.
-Cloud streaming = low hardware requirements - seems a ps4/ps3/vita are not even needed. A $99 Playstation TV or specific Bravia set just needs a controller for input.

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/playstation-now-david-perry/
 

spaceman

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
14,875
I would hope there are at least some people at Sony who don't have their heads up their ass. If you can hear me, those prices suck. Maybe in your universe of unicorns and fat breasted fairy ladies it does...

In this universe Steam just owns your butt.

Oh and consoles? Those suck too.

PC till I die yo.
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
Did some more reading and I think I'm starting to see how Sony thinks it's a decent idea. The key is that Sony bought Gaikai for $380M so they really need to make something out of the investment one way or another even if it was a dumb move.

It's still super screwed as far as I can see it. Would be cool if as a PS Plus subscriber you get to check out one game at a time or something along those lines as a bonus. Still glad I never jumped on the current gen consoles.

Interesting points:
-Renting a movie on Play Store or Amazon is not exactly a bargain either - you're paying for convenience
-Redbox? People are still willing to pay more the convenience of online rental versus $1.50 physical blu ray rental.
-Cloud streaming = low hardware requirements - seems a ps4/ps3/vita are not even needed. A $99 Playstation TV or specific Bravia set just needs a controller for input.

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/playstation-now-david-perry/

These are the types of decisions that will bury sony. They need to make a profit i understand that, however if they cannot reasonably price a service based on the technology they bought they never should have bought said Technology. It will backfire and they will lose a ton of money on the purchase. If they drop the pricing they have a shot at turning a profit but not like this, not even remotely close.

Renting a movie from amazon isnt just about convienence, they have movies available for rent that i cant find locally, digital distributions since they are able to keep massive archives without much lost (no physical space in a physical store just server space) they can keep a larger library than most local places and also essentially allow unlimited rentals which physical stores cannot
 

MrSneis

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
2,716
I completely agree, spending some money on a gamble like this does not appear to us outsiders like it would be strengthening the Sony brand.

And like you say, Amazon has a lot less to lose as they need their servers to run their business from the get go so less investment to provide a rental/streaming service- heck it probably would have made more sense for Amazon to buy Gaikai.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,038
I hope y'all understand it's still a Beta (which is odd considering betas are free). The prices are flat out insane as they stand but the heads of this service said they are looking at subscription models along with this tenting model.

And iirc prices are set by the IP owners not necessarily Sony.

No one is going to rent/buy those titles for those prices, so let those third parties see the results then wait it out. They really have nothing to lose by making their titles available on the service at lower prices.

The only way this service will work is if it's cheap rentals based of real time (3 bucks for 3 days or something) or it's like Netflix paid monthly or yearly for unlimited access.
 

VladDracule

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
2,043
I hope y'all understand it's still a Beta (which is odd considering betas are free). The prices are flat out insane as they stand but the heads of this service said they are looking at subscription models along with this tenting model.

And iirc prices are set by the IP owners not necessarily Sony.

No one is going to rent/buy those titles for those prices, so let those third parties see the results then wait it out. They really have nothing to lose by making their titles available on the service at lower prices.

The only way this service will work is if it's cheap rentals based of real time (3 bucks for 3 days or something) or it's like Netflix paid monthly or yearly for unlimited access.

If its a decent rate for a yearly sub i would go for it, but individual rentals...just doesnt make much sense to me, even a week long rental isnt enough time for me to beat an average length game
 

Comixbooks

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
18,357
When either The order 1886 or Bloodborne come out I'll see if the system is worth it.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,038
If its a decent rate for a yearly sub i would go for it, but individual rentals...just doesnt make much sense to me, even a week long rental isnt enough time for me to beat an average length game

They are doing rentals, they won't get away from that because it's going to be like the CC companies making profit off the people who pay minimum payments instead of paying it off every month.

I wouldn't rent anything personally. I'd like to see a pricing system for unlimited play. It's a new business model and everyone who has tried has failed. Sony can't just rely on their World Wide Studios with this service which is the problem.

I think everyone will agree it won't be successful unless they have the unlimited option at a reasonable price.
 
5

5icko

Guest
Been looking into buying a PS4, since MS will never get my money.

Based on this money grab, I guess Sony won't get it either.
 

Mini-Me

Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
567
What a financially stupid decision: Even hinting that the prices might be so ludicrous is a perfect way to generate horrible publicity.
 
Top