Support NeoGAF

[JaseC]

I dunno that seems like weird way to think about it given the games supported on it until the recent announcement were only PS3 games.

The service was supported on more than the PS3 and the PS3 itself is practically a legacy platform. Sony wants people to move on to its latest offering and removing options is one way to nudge people towards doing that.

 

[family_guy]

Probably not enough people using it on other devices, so they cut it down to save money.

It's a client though. They already did the work of developing it so no real reason to take it away. My 5 yr old smart TV's Netflix app hasn't been updated since 2013 but I can still watch movies through it. They have to keep the servers running so it seems like the only thing they might be saving money on is customer support. Even if they add PS4 games a simple check could be done to see what client you have and just give you the PS3 games if you're on the older clients.

 

[PLASTICA-MAN]

They need to tone down the price too. 100 dollars? So much per year. We pay PSN Plus to play online and now this?
50 dollars/euros would be fine.

 

[staticneuron]

Probably not enough people using it at all but they are dropping support for platforms where they think it's least telling.
I mean, if they would drop support for ps4, they might as well drop the whole service as the message itself would be suicide.

Sony is not into saving things just for the hell of it. They kill studios, products, and entire product lines if it isn't sustainable. PSnow must be somehow sustainable but they most likely dropped support for products that did not get much use. Makes sense if you think about each product they axed support for
.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

They need to tone down the price too. 100 dollars? So much per year. We pay PSN Plus to play online and now this?
50 dollars/euros would be fine.

Netflix costs $96 a year for it's most basic, non-HD, package ($120 if you want HD) and people seem to have no issues with that.

Why is the price of PS Now always an issue when streaming services for video cost around the same price?

Just like Netflix (or even PS+), it's an option. You don't have to pay anything.

 

[PLASTICA-MAN]

Netflix costs $96 a year for it's most basic, non-HD, package ($120 if you want HD) and people seem to have no issues with that.

Why is the price of PS Now always an issue when streaming services for video cost around the same price?

Just like Netflix (or even PS+), it's an option. You don't have to pay anything.

Well, if every service costs that much, then no one could afford to get as many as possible.
Some services need to be less costly, especially for companies who present similar services on same platform i.e: here on PS4 Sony already offers PSN Plus and many other services, PS NOW should be priced adequately

 

[Neo_Geo]

I've never used the service, but this seems really strange to me.

As a streaming service along the lines of Netflix and Spotify, you'd think they would try to get is on to every platform possible - tablets, phones, media streaming boxes etc. Bizarre.

Sony has a very archaic and ignorant mindset that makes them think that limiting the service to their own products is somehow a good thing. Their own pride is making them lose revenue. There are literally no valid arguments for keeping the service off of every single platform they possibly can.

That and the service is fairly overpriced. Make it $5 a month and put it on every device you can, unless of course you don't like vastly increased revenue streams. Some companies are into that sort of thing.

 

[family_guy]

Sony has a very archaic and ignorant mindset that makes them think that limiting the service to their own products is somehow a good thing. Their own pride is making them lose revenue. There are literally no valid arguments for keeping the service off of every single platform they possibly can.

That and the service is fairly overpriced. Make it $5 a month and put it on every device you can, unless of course you don't like vastly increased revenue streams. Some companies are into that sort of thing.

$5 a month? Sure that's realistic. I'm sure it's $20 a month not because of licensing, server, and support costs, but just because Sony's that greedy. They can't support their current infrastructure, let alone expand it to support millions of people at that price.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

Good. I want the PS5 to have back compat. Not shove the PS4 games through this service and then fleece people on a few remasters. Be interesting to see what happens because it's clearly not straight forward to do it, even when using x86 and 'standard' architecture. Sony have to nail it though because I think MS will next gen.

Streaming full games is a good idea in theory but the tech just isn't capable of doing it at a good standard. Latency, image quality etc.

 

[Kayant]

The service was supported on more than the PS3 and the PS3 itself is practically a legacy platform. Sony wants people to move on to its latest offering and removing options is one way to nudge people towards doing that.

Right reading back yh I misinterpreted/read your comment wrong 😁 😳 😂.

 

[JaseC]

Right reading back yh I misinterpreted/read your comment wrong 😁 😳 😂.

Haha, no harm, no foul.

 

[Murkas]

They're removing it because they'll be announcing full PS3 backwards compatibility at E3.

 

[OfTheOverflow]

It's not enough for Sony to not release games for the Vita, they're actively taking them away lmao