Sorry, but no price has been dropped. I have screenshots from before and after. There are some new games, but the games that remained are exactly the same as they were.
-
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.
PS NOW. Rentals from US$2.99 to US$19.99.
- Thread starter Guymelef
- Start date
Sorry, but no price has been dropped. I have screenshots from before and after. There are some new games, but the games that remained are exactly the same as they were.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
Let's face it, the 4 hour price is basically a demo for most games so I think the price should reflect that. Drop the time to 2 hours and charge $1. If someone wants to play a game that only take 3-4 hours to finish, it will still only cost them $2.
Service is very good. I have 25Mbps B/W. They said it will work directly on Bravia TV without needing any additional hardware. They sell 13-16M TVs every year.
PS Now is supposed to come on other non-playstation platforms too. It is a excellent value when you consider that there is zero upfront cost.
Service is really good. My internet connection where my PS4 is can get really bad but there's no discernible latency with PS Now. I can only imagine how good it will be if I moved my PS4 or ran a wired connection.
Citizen_Insane
Member
2 hour demo for a dollar would be pretty damn good.
Miles Quaritch
Member
$3 seems rather excessive for 4 hours. Shouldn't it really be 48 hours?
gotstrangepowers
Banned
People think Sony will be beat on value by OnLive? Ok
Nope it's $15-30 for 3 months
Lot of people dont even know they exist. If they could partner with Samsung or LG and make it as default app on the TV, things will be lot competitive.
You haven't been paying attention, there have always been a few different price point tiers ever since the prices were added in. They haven't changed since.
Gaikai was supposed to come to Samsung TVs before Sony bought them so a Samsung partnership wouldn't surprise me.
hodayathink
Member
Not until well after this is on Sony TVs, considering Samsung and LG are two of the three TV manufacturing companies eating their lunch right now (Vizio being the other).
No matter how many times people post that, or point out that it's in the OP, everyone is going to ignore it.
So people keep saying they are targeting a different market, ie people who don't own a PS3.
Which is fine and all, but this isn't going to stop mainstream rentals and isn't that the issue that the majority of publishers have to begin with ?
This seems more and more like a waste of money if Sony aren't targeting "real" gamers.
Which is fine and all, but this isn't going to stop mainstream rentals and isn't that the issue that the majority of publishers have to begin with ?
This seems more and more like a waste of money if Sony aren't targeting "real" gamers.
Trent Strong
Banned
That's pretty good.
4hours seems weird, it's like they don't want people to try that category. How many games can be beaten in 4 hours on first try anyway? It should at least be 8hrs.
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
I was just pondering what the pricing might be like here in Japan, when I remembered that game rentals are actually illegal, at least physical copies. Have Sony ever mentioned PS now in regards to Asia?
WoolyNinja
Member
From what I've played the service works better than Onlive ever did. Its amazing how well it worked for me and I'm using wi-fi. Can't imagine how great it is over ethernet cable.
the biggest user base will not be bravia tv owners, it will be PS4 owners who don't have/don't feel like hooking up a PS3 (plus a few vita owners)
MrMephistoX
Member
Yep I'm tempted to try out 2.99 rentals but no way I'd pay what they're asking for 90 days at that price you should just own the game outright.
I don't mind paying like $15 a month as a flat fee for the service or like a $20 bundle with PS+ included but this is DOA as pay per view.
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
To begin with, yes, but then it will be TV, Laptop, Pads, phones and Blu-ray player owners.
Suzushiiro
Banned
The idea behind the 4-hour tier is that you can try a game you're not sure about, then get a longer rental period if you decide you like it.
bemusedchunk
Banned
I really think that a subscription model would do this service wonders.
Charge $15/mo and give people UNLIMITED access to the library - much like Netflix.
Just rotate games in and out.
Hell, you can tack it onto plus and call it premium plus or something for $65/mo.
Charge $15/mo and give people UNLIMITED access to the library - much like Netflix.
Just rotate games in and out.
Hell, you can tack it onto plus and call it premium plus or something for $65/mo.
yeah it'll come to those, but I don't think the amount of tv/tablet/laptop/phone/etc. users will ever be bigger than PS4 users
as stated several times in this thread, sony has said that a subscription model is coming but it likely will be higher than $15 a month, and will not give you access to everything
Better.
The 4 hours thing is probably on purpose because if they make it a day or so then a lot of games can be finished in that time.
Orthogonal
Member
It would probably need to be more than $15 per month, but I think this is the best model.
As is, these prices are in the stratosphere. Sony better prepare for an underwhelming response because this is a total no go with the current proposed pricing model. It is going to flop hard.
bemusedchunk
Banned
Thanks for the info. Didn't read the entire thread (i'm bad) so didn't know that they announced new plans.
Good on them. I'd love to see Nintendo adopt a similar plan instead of releasing stuff on the VC slowly.
As of right now...OnLive's prices are much more reasonable; $9.95 a month for the PlayPack and $7.95 a month for CloudLift. So yes...if these prices sitck then OnLive will continue beating Sony in value.
Oh sweet thanks for the update.
Suzushiiro
Banned
Netflix-style for older games with the pricing model they have now for newer stuff (well, 3-month would probably be $40 or so at first with the lower tiers proportionally higher, because $15 for thee months on a $60 game is silly,) would be the most logical solution.
The sub should also give you access to games not already "fully covered" by it if you own the game on PSN or have the disc in a PS3 or PS4 tied to your account.
gotstrangepowers
Banned
"Subscriptions are available for just $14.99 USD (£9.99 GBP)/month, with a free 7-day trial. OnLive will also continue to offer the ever-popular PlayPack subscription ($9.99 USD/£6.99 GBP/month)"
http://www.onlive.com/news/pressreleases/1638
jim-jam bongs
Member
Old numbers, it's $9.95 for Playpack and $7.95 for CloudLift.
Source: my OnLive billing history.
Grinchy
Banned
I probably won't be using this service at all, but I don't think it's the ripoff that many others appear to. Let's say you weren't sure about a game. You could pay $3 to play the first 4 hours of it. If you love it, you can either rent it for longer or buy it. If you hate it, you only lost $3 instead of paying $60 and now you're stuck with selling it on Amazon/Ebay/Gamestop.
It seems like a pretty decent and convenient way to rent games IMO.
It seems like a pretty decent and convenient way to rent games IMO.
BumblebeeCody
Member
These prices are funny. I know that Street Fighter 4 is on the list, so why wold you rent the game when it's based on replayabilty? 4 hours you could complete a single player game, not a game that's solely based on competitive multiplayer. Are people still praising Sony?
Nymphae
Banned
People are laughing their asses off at $20 rentals, but I'm not sure how that's really all that worse than the $80 + I pay in Canada for a new retail games. In most cases I'm done with a game in under a month, and trading it in at EB for X amount of dollars off my next purchase.
Tons of money wasted right there, I have basically stopped buying new retail releases. But the idea of paying 4 times less for a game and keeping it for just enough time to beat it is very appealing honestly.
Tons of money wasted right there, I have basically stopped buying new retail releases. But the idea of paying 4 times less for a game and keeping it for just enough time to beat it is very appealing honestly.
As a fellow Canadian I have to agree.
A week is enough to finish a lot of games and for $6 that is half of I would pay for an old used game on Kijiji.
They probably included SF4 because its a fighting game and requires precision so they wanted to test the lag.
If you are going to put hundreds of hours into the game then there really is no point in renting it to begin with.
Dreamgazer
Member
There are some people who are interested in fighting games, but not good enough to replay it much.
That and...what's wrong with options?
Folks thumbing their noses at SONY not offering a 15 to 20 dollar subscription fee are deluding themselves. NO publisher is going to go for that. At best you'll get titles phased in that a publisher is fine with being on some a la carte plan.
15-30 bucks for new release titles seems more than fair to me.
15-30 bucks for new release titles seems more than fair to me.
What does week/month/3 months actually mean?
Do you have unlimited use during that period or are there daily time limits or such?
If it's unlimited, the week and month prices are really really good. I'd use them a lot.
The 4 hour price is obviously poor value by comparison, but I think it's there mostly to upsell you on the weekly or monthly.
xKilltheMx
Member
In the beta unlimited use.
xKilltheMx
Member
Flunkie! Why didn't you get one from the e3 app?
Didn't know you could? Lol, idk. Been pretty out of the loop lately.
Ash_Killem
Banned
This is a mistake they need a subscription model.