PlayStation Now Is Still Way Too Expensive

This comes right after Sony called EA Access, which costs $4.99 a month, a bad deal.
 
I'm not interested in PlayStation Now. I might be interested in PlayStation Later? xD

I don't like the idea of renting a game at those prices. I would rather buy the games digitally and have access to them for at least the life of the service.

Paying a rental fee on top of paying for access to the rental service just doesn't make sense. People aren't going to pay that much to rent older games, they're going to just shrug and buy new games. Anyone that's nostalgic for an older game wants to buy, not rent.

Nintendo lets you buy NES games for $5, with no subscription fee. That's a much better deal.
 
I didn't see anyone mention in the comments so far but Sony doesn't set the price of the rentals in any way.

The pricing is 100% set by the publishers .

Sony is providing the backbone and streaming setups for them, you actually rent a dedicated physical PS3 setup when you play a Ps3 game.

This allows people to use PS now with the Vita TV and newer Sony TVs and Sony has stated they do want to offer a monthly fee option were titles the publishers allow are available like Netflix is for movies.

So far it is in only open beta so the publishers are pushing the limits of the pricing to see what the market will tolerate and so far they priced way, way too high, but if Sony does actually launch with a monthly option instead of a rental it makes sense why they called the EA Access idea a bad value since they will have many publishers.
 
The 4 hour rental shouldn't even exist.
They should offer that for free as a demo, just like onlive lets you try just any game for an hour.
Especially looking at the selection, Paintball 4? Jimmy Johnson's Anything with an engine? Who's going to rent that crap?
At minimum offer that to PS+ users for free. The way its setup right now makes them look extremely greedy, especially when some of those titles are questionably worth even the $3 they are asking....
 
Ahh, so MS isn't them only one to F themselves. Congrats Sony, and I was just saying how I might buy a ps4 and dump my ps3, since I see ps4 can do 3d blu-ray now. Oh Well.

Steam Big picture, 360 controller, and 3d glasses! Yes my Gigabyte GeForce GTX 650 OC card works in 3D on Big Picture 55 inch screen! Less than $120 on Amazon! Eat it Sony.
 
i havent turned my ps4 on since a week after launch.
no games, no DLNA media, nothing
 
This is a joke right?
If its not they need to put the idiot that brainstormed this in front of a firing squad on national TV so we can see the gene pool getting thinned in a positive way.
 
undermined said:
I didn't see anyone mention in the comments so far but Sony doesn't set the price of the rentals in any way.

The pricing is 100% set by the publishers .

Sony is providing the backbone and streaming setups for them, you actually rent a dedicated physical PS3 setup when you play a Ps3 game.

This allows people to use PS now with the Vita TV and newer Sony TVs and Sony has stated they do want to offer a monthly fee option were titles the publishers allow are available like Netflix is for movies.

So far it is in only open beta so the publishers are pushing the limits of the pricing to see what the market will tolerate and so far they priced way, way too high, but if Sony does actually launch with a monthly option instead of a rental it makes sense why they called the EA Access idea a bad value since they will have many publishers.
Click to expand...

next-Jin said:
iirc prices are set by the IP owners not necessarily Sony.
Click to expand...

Sony is usually a go to bash company here on [H], them, Apple, and telephone/cable companies. Just the way it is.
 
next-Jin said:
Sony is usually a go to bash company here on [H], them, Apple, and telephone/cable companies. Just the way it is.
Click to expand...

How so? I've noticed a general negativity towards consoles in general, but Sony bashing up there with Apple on this site.......no. Also, I can see you own a PS3 and PS4, so maybe you detect a little more negativity on the [H]. I have a PS3 myself, but am in no hurry to get a PS4 until there are more games.

The thing is, steaming games is not a good way to address backward compatibility. There are too many things that can go wrong on the ISP side. I don't think Sony is going to want to do a Netflix and pay ISPs to give them a steady speed for their gaming service. I personally don't care about the price, it's the iffy use of streaming that seems like a terminally bad idea.

Also, Sony has no plans to steam any PS1 or PS2 games as we speak. That's doesn't sound too hot of an idea either.
 
When I checked out this "service" last night, my wife's first comment was "those aren't good deals", and she knows next to nothing about games and pricing. This service is trash and looks like we'll be back to lolsony again.
 
next-Jin said:
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.
Click to expand...

And someone needs to back this shit up because I keep hearing it but no one can provide proof. I find it very hard to believe every IP owner came to the same pricing structure and offered that to Sony.
 
Does the PS4 have worthwhile exclusive games that I can't get on the PC? I haven't owned a console since GameCube, so I know little about them. Thing is I recently purchased a 50" Sony TV that is supposedly one of the best gaming TV's out there and thought maybe it would be worth it to get a PS4 for purposes of entertaining friends. I bet the new consoles have some pretty kickass sports games that might be fun that I normally wouldn't play on my gaming PC.
 
Dreaz said:
And someone needs to back this shit up because I keep hearing it but no one can provide proof. I find it very hard to believe every IP owner came to the same pricing structure and offered that to Sony.
Click to expand...

And what pricing structure might that be? Some game rental fees listed are reasonable (other than the 4hr rental) while others like F1 is absolutely absurd. They are not all the same for the same rental period.

That alone should be proof enough. I sincerely doubt Somy is just wondering who the stupid people are that get those titles being pointed out in the news lately.
 
homernoy said:
How so? I've noticed a general negativity towards consoles in general, but Sony bashing up there with Apple on this site.......no. Also, I can see you own a PS3 and PS4, so maybe you detect a little more negativity on the [H]. I have a PS3 myself, but am in no hurry to get a PS4 until there are more games.

The thing is, steaming games is not a good way to address backward compatibility. There are too many things that can go wrong on the ISP side. I don't think Sony is going to want to do a Netflix and pay ISPs to give them a steady speed for their gaming service. I personally don't care about the price, it's the iffy use of streaming that seems like a terminally bad idea.

Also, Sony has no plans to steam any PS1 or PS2 games as we speak. That's doesn't sound too hot of an idea either.
Click to expand...

If we compare positive news to negative news relating between both platforms it is what it is. It's always been like that, ever since the root kit there are no saving them here.

I don't think you can compare them to Netflix where they will have to pay ISPs. Netflix is huge and even if this streaming service takes off. (I doubt it) They wouldn't even be using a fraction of what Netflix uses.

And PS1 titles doesn't make much sense as you'd be using far more in bandwidth than the cost of just downloading a small file. I'm not sure about the size of PS2 titles, they may or may not go that route later down the line. No idea.
 
next-Jin said:
If we compare positive news to negative news relating between both platforms it is what it is. It's always been like that, ever since the root kit there are no saving them here.

I don't think you can compare them to Netflix where they will have to pay ISPs. Netflix is huge and even if this streaming service takes off. (I doubt it) They wouldn't even be using a fraction of what Netflix uses.

And PS1 titles doesn't make much sense as you'd be using far more in bandwidth than the cost of just downloading a small file. I'm not sure about the size of PS2 titles, they may or may not go that route later down the line. No idea.
Click to expand...

And before anyone takes that out of context nothing can get posted without (insert something negative) in the comments, same with Apple and telcom companies. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. [H] remembers everything and never forgets.
 
maverikv said:
With Steam Big Picture mode and wireless 360 controllers, this console generation is a total waste anyway
Click to expand...

I'll say, I got rid of my 360 years ago because it's hardware was obsolete then. Consoles suck. Long live the PC. :D
 
Steve said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

If steam closes shop next year, then what? All digital purchases have some risk. That said, Steam is cheap enough that it's worth the risk....though I probably have 10x as many games that I haven't played as those that I have.
 
Disgusting. $49.99 for 90 days? And for older games that can be bought right now for half that and have the benefit of permanent ownership?

Sony is taking a cue from Microsoft post E3 2013 it seems. Stop sucking on car fumes Sony.
 
MGS4 is like $15 for 90 days, which sounds pretty sane to me.
(and $13 for a month because reasons)
 
I'm amazed I haven't seen Vlad Dracule on this thread yet, defending the PS4 "PC", lol.
Yeah, these prices are crazy for what little value is given.

Almost full price for a rental... Sony is going down in flames.
 
Exavior said:
or you could buy the game for what $20 and have it forever?
Click to expand...

Assuming they have a PS3 why would they rent a PS3 game in the first place? This service is made for folks who are new to the PlayStation ecosystem. (i.e. Sony TV's, PSTVs, Tablets, etc.)

In that respect, someone who has never owned a PS3 and just bought a PS4 can rent Killzone 3, or MGS4, or what have you for a week at like 5-7 bucks, play it and beat it and be done. The same can be said for someone who just bought that shiny new tablet, or TV or got the PSTV.

And folk's are still claiming the worst for Sony quoting the highest prices when they don't set prices. All of their Sony owned IP is pretty respectable at the week long rental rates. (the 4 hour rental is bullshit).
 
Why would anyone "rent" a game for $50, when they can buy it, most likely for cheaper, then actually own the game/license.
This is just Sony's way of parting fools *cough* console gamers from their money.
 
Red Falcon said:
I'm amazed I haven't seen Vlad Dracule on this thread yet, defending the PS4 "PC", lol.
Yeah, these prices are crazy for what little value is given.

Almost full price for a rental... Sony is going down in flames.
Click to expand...

WTF are you even talking about? Dont pull me into some made up shit like that
 
VladDracule said:
WTF are you even talking about? Dont pull me into some made up shit like that
Click to expand...
I knew that would get your attention. :p
Take it easy, I was just messing around, since I knew what an advocate of the PS4 you are. ;)
 
next-Jin said:
Assuming they have a PS3 why would they rent a PS3 game in the first place? This service is made for folks who are new to the PlayStation ecosystem. (i.e. Sony TV's, PSTVs, Tablets, etc.)

In that respect, someone who has never owned a PS3 and just bought a PS4 can rent Killzone 3, or MGS4, or what have you for a week at like 5-7 bucks, play it and beat it and be done. The same can be said for someone who just bought that shiny new tablet, or TV or got the PSTV.

And folk's are still claiming the worst for Sony quoting the highest prices when they don't set prices. All of their Sony owned IP is pretty respectable at the week long rental rates. (the 4 hour rental is bullshit).
Click to expand...
The reason Sony gets the brunt is that it's their service. Of course the publishers should be in control of their content but it should be an easy call for Sony to tell publishers to either set reasonable prices (you know, prices that are at least as cheap as buying the content used given that nobody with a brain is going to pay day-one new prices for multi-year-old games) or their games won't be on the system. The alternative is that people won't rent any games once they see that whatever game they happen to want to play is too expensive.

For example, I'm as in the tank for the Xbox as anybody but I've skipped buying several titles from their "Games on Demand" store (where you buy a full game that attaches to your Xbox Live account, available indefinitely) because the prices for the online versions aren't even as cheap as buying a new, sealed copy of the game on disc; if they can't even match those prices, then the convenience benefits (my broadband is broad but not very broad) go right out the window. And, yeah, I blame Microsoft for it. Either they're charging license fees that are too high or they're not exerting enough pressure on the publishers to price match with themselves.

As for the comparison with streaming video rentals, paying a premium for those makes sense because the instant you rent a video online you can start watching it and you know you'll get the whole experience in a couple hours (even if you pause a lot, getting the whole experience in a 24-hour period is easy), and even the premium prices are like $5 or less, which is within most people's impulse-buying range.
 
Give me a Playstation Now subscription plan consisting of:

$19.99/month - Any 3 game, week-long rentals per month.
$34.99/month - Unlimited game rentals.

Honestly I feel those prices would be more fair.
 
The whole renting thing is bad enough, but STREAMING?? That's the real kick in the nuts. Streaming games sounds great in theory but awful in practice. Not to mention you're only renting those games.

This is a terrible fucking deal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top