King Beyond the wall
Member
I'd imagine 14.99 for one month, and 39.99 for three months.
That's if playstation now ever gets released here.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PlayStation Now Subscription Program: All The Details
- Thread starter fluffydelusions
- Start date
I'd imagine 14.99 for one month, and 39.99 for three months.
That's if playstation now ever gets released here.
samuraidino
Member
If they really want to improve adoption rates they should include some form of token system for ps+ to rent a game or two a month.
But still, the price seems fair for what it is, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than the individual rental prices.
But still, the price seems fair for what it is, and makes a hell of a lot more sense than the individual rental prices.
No patches as in the games well be patched on their end and you wont have to download any patches.
I'd rather have those emulated locally.
SerTapTap
Member
If you mean "is this part of PS+" no, PS+ is never going to also be PS Now. IF you mean "is PS+ required to even pay for this" I can't see how that could possibly be the case as it's streamed to two consoles that don't require PS+ in any way for anything online.
Garrett Hawke
Member
Holy fuck, this is cool. A bit on the expensive side but at least they're listening to subscription calls.
I really hope this comes to the UK. I tried doing the network test and it said I was too far away from the servers
I really hope this comes to the UK. I tried doing the network test and it said I was too far away from the servers
I don't think so? Even during the beta, you did not need PS+ to use PS Now.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
I'm not sure this price point is what I was expecting. That's not a good thing either. Ehhh, I don't know about this. I thing $20 for 3 months, $50 for 6, and $99 for year would have been better.
cyberheater
PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 PS4 Xbone PS4 PS4
TIMtationX
Member
FINALLY. $20 is exactly the kinda number i expected given the amount of games.
Sure, it really won't be a huge deal, you'd need to be running separate builds of every game anyways to support DLC
SerTapTap
Member
Yeah they really do need a yearly sub. I hate subs in general, but I would want something like this long term.
Don't ditch the PS3 regardless. There are games you already own that'll always be better locally, and some games will never hit PS Now due to licensing/publishers not caring/being dead. My PS3 has UMvC3, Marvel 2, Scott Pilgrim and some Midway Arcade games that'll never hit PS Now due to licensing, plus Folklore in all likelihood.
.
Don't ditch the PS3 regardless. There are games you already own that'll always be better locally, and some games will never hit PS Now due to licensing/publishers not caring/being dead. My PS3 has UMvC3, Marvel 2, Scott Pilgrim and some Midway Arcade games that'll never hit PS Now due to licensing, plus Folklore in all likelihood.
KingJ2002
Member
thats a good price that should increase adoption rates.
Considering gamefly charges 25+ for two game rentals a month... it's competitive.
they should definitely change the marketing though... speak on the month to month package instead of the 3 month deal... it just confuses people.
Considering gamefly charges 25+ for two game rentals a month... it's competitive.
they should definitely change the marketing though... speak on the month to month package instead of the 3 month deal... it just confuses people.
There will be a free trial available. It's stated in the OP.
lol because its a good deal?
The Boohbah Zone
Member
Not a bad price. Would have liked the single month price to be $15 but I'll probably give it a shot.
Missed that. Thanks. Glad I'll finally get to check it out risk-free.
Opus Angelorum
Member
I thought they would have offered a separate bundle for those with PS+ at a lower price.
Pyramidbread
Neo Member
It means, you yourself don't have to download patches, rather than the games not being patched.
ricen-beans
Member
No. You can get Now without having plus. It's a seperate service.
1st Course
Member
good stuff
also lmao @ people complaining. $20/mo is not much considering the amount of games offered (hundreds). For people who don't have PS3 its much less costly than having to buy PS3 and then buying every game individually.
also lmao @ people complaining. $20/mo is not much considering the amount of games offered (hundreds). For people who don't have PS3 its much less costly than having to buy PS3 and then buying every game individually.
Dr. Black Jack
Member
If you view games as disposable entertainment and have zero shopping savvy then yeah, this is perfect.
witchedwiz
Member
If it was something 3dollar/ month if you own plus, 10 else..
I might have bited, if anything to support it since i own every game i want pretty much..
But 20/month? On top of psplus?
Cmon...
Deft Beck
Member
I would buy that. I believe I discussed something similar in a thread of mine a few months ago.
Pyramidbread
Neo Member
Oh, you expected they'd run a streaming service for free? I suppose they could do that, if they interrupted gameplay for ads.
ptuck874
Member
ReplacementPelican
Member
Will they ever extend Gaikai to things we already own on the PS3?
They should make it so you always pay the lowest price.
Start off by picking and choosing a game, and just play for as long as you like. If you play for an hour, you pay for an hour. If you play a few different games and the overall cost gets to be $20, then it caps the cost at $20 and gives you full access to the catalog like a subscription would.
The price is near what I've expected, but the price is not really the problem. I've tried playing several games with the service, and most of the time I notice drops in quality, and significant input lag. In the end, I just get out and buy the actual game if I enjoyed it.
I'm hoping the quality of the service has been increased though. Haven't tried it in a couple of months.
I'm hoping the quality of the service has been increased though. Haven't tried it in a couple of months.
Living Proof
Member
Well, I suppose part of the reason has to do with my own personal library; I've got well over 200 physical PS3 games and at least that many downloaded PSN titles. Looking at that picture, there's only a handful of games I don't own.
That said, I wasn't expecting the service to cater to someone like me. I was anticipating some sort of all-access availability, though, where every game was playable and not a middling selection from an already limited draw of the huge PS3 library. I was also expecting some word on being able to stream games that are already tied to our PSN accounts-- instead of having to download titles I already own, for example, I could just steam it instead with license verification (even if this requires another fee, I think it would have been welcome).
Finally, the lack of any word on PSOne games being available for streaming means we'll probably have to deal with terriblez slow implementation on the PS4 ala Virtual Console BS, and that's something I think many people were hoping Sony would be clarifying since it had been implied their massive back catalog of classic games would hit PS Now.
Even with an "all access" subscription model I would be satisfied, disregarding everything I've said above. As it stands, we'll have the choice of shelling out a fairly significant amount of money for a relatively small library of titles that naturally won't appeal to everyone and will likely be fed a slow drip of new titles and be treated as if they're going out of their way heroically for adding 3-4 games a month (or worse, rotating them out).
I'm just not satisfied at all with thi, or what the future holds for the program.
what has zero shopping savvy to do with this?
Is there another way to stream PS3/2/1 games to my Vita and PS4? Am I missing something?
xKilltheMx
Member
20 a month seems fair as fuck to me.