Support NeoGAF

[Busty]

It should work like a SVOD service like Netflix. A flat monthly fee that would grant you access to older titles like PS1, PS2 and other platforms like Dreamcast, NeoGeo etc, etc and a 'pay-per-view' style payment option for newer PS3 titles like Last Of Us.

This a' la carte option isn't going to take, at all.

 

[DrROBschiz]

Subscription model makes way more sense

Many if not all available titles could be had permanently for 20 bucks or less.

This is going to be a tricky service to justify and nail down

Especially since there is no way for them to ensure a quality experience for the end user unless it uses DATA extremely efficiently

Even then you better have some solid internet at all times....

 

[The Lamp]

I can't imagine who would rent a game for any period of time for $20.

I know people who go see a movie for $10 for 2 hours. It's crazy.

 

[borghe]

I don't see how $20 for a reasonable time (a month) on a day 1 release is unreasonable. People will already pay $60 on day 1, beat it and then trade it back to GameStop for like $30-35, effectively renting it for $25-30 for the same duration. So a huge number of people are already paying/doing this and Sony just puts the numbers in a different order and people flip out? Yeesh.

 

[suddenlyissoon]

If you've bought the title digitally in the past for PS3, you should get the PSNow version completely free.

 

[Spineker]

Yep, that is ridiculous.

 

[Vashetti]

If you've bought the title digitally in the past for PS3, you should get the PSNow version completely free.

They didn't invest all that money to let you stream for free.

 

[Haloid1177]

$20?

Sony ya done fucked it up.

 

[Officerrob]

I don't see how $20 for a reasonable time (a month) on a day 1 release is unreasonable. People will already pay $60 on day 1, beat it and then trade it back to GameStop for like $30-35, effectively renting it for $25-30 for the same duration. So a huge number of people are already paying/doing this and Sony just puts the numbers in a different order and people flip out? Yeesh.

Gamefly is $23 a month for two games with no latency, $20 a month for one streaming game is bad

 

[TheRagnCajun]

subscription please, netflix style

 

[ReaperXL7]

Man, just give me Twisted Metal Black on my Vita and PS4.

I think it depends on the type of person really. I could see people choosing to rent a $60 game for $20 because they don't care about buying it outright and just want to finish it then delete it. If the duration was a solid amount of time it could make even more sense for someone like that.

Not everyone wants to have 200 game library's in their house.

 

[schaft0620]

I don't see a scenario where I rent a video game again.

 

[gzero]

$20 for a rental? Unless it's a brand new release and you get it for a good while then I don't see anyone willing to pay that much.

I wonder how many brand new PS3 releases there will be by the time this is out of beta.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I'm not renting per game.

Subscription service or never mind.

 

[Pillville]

It should work like a SVOD service like Netflix. A flat monthly fee that would grant you access to older titles like PS1, PS2 and other platforms like Dreamcast, NeoGeo etc, etc and a 'pay-per-view' style payment option for newer PS3 titles like Last Of Us.

This a' la carte option isn't going to take, at all.

Exactly!

I was hoping they would be smart and make this Netflix-style, but instead we get game by game rentals. They just lost me completely.

 

[Sylver]

Ey sony you're offering free games foever with PS+ subscription and now do you pretend us to pay 20$ for time experience?

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Uh no. All-you-can-eat or gtfo.

 

[StoOgE]

Dunno Sony.

I think consumers have changed since the days of Blockbuster 2.99 rentals.

I would think most consumers at this point want a subscription service. I guess the rub being that any subscription would be astronomical if it were to include new releases.

Maybe they should just focus on old-gen games (like a VC) and either sell the games for cheap (no more than 10 dollars) or come up with some kind of way to reverse engineer a 19.95 subscription fee.

It's a curious question because the service is a great idea and the technology is fantastic. I just don't know how one could monetize something like this and 1) Not draw the ire of consumers and 2) actually charge an amount of money that allows a profit to be made.

 

[Guerrilla]

actually seems like pachter was right on ps now. Can't imagine this service paying off unfortunately

 

[Ephemeris]

At $20, I would only be comfortable with paying that much in two scenarios :

1) an all-inclusive pass for the month
2) Game collection or publisher packages. Ex: a resident evil collection, or a Rockstar or EA 2015 sports package.


But with my luck that'll be for one game haha

 

[SneakyStephan]

$20 for a rental? GTFO

$2.99 is reasonable if it is for a few days.

It's not a rental it's free when you spend 20 dollars on PS NOW

 

[Officerrob]

Ey sony you're offering free games foever with PS+ subscription and now do you pretend us to pay 20$ for time experience?

This is also another problem, PS+ is so good that I feel it actually hurts PS NOW

 

[fade_]

From what I understand they are looking at both a subscription service and a la carte. We'll see.

 

[MThanded]

$20 for a month
$10 for two weeks
$3 for a week

I wouldn't mind that.

So i should just rent for 4 weeks instead of a month?

I can't imagine who would rent a game for any period of time for $20.

People seem to have no problem seeing a 90 minute movie for 15 dollars.

 

[mookie_kabuki]

I'm going to pass on psnow.. I've seen how it works and I'm not impressed. Streaming was very unstable and input lag was horrible on fios.

 

[whatsinaname]

The only game I would pay $20 to rent is Uncharted 4 on day 1. But I am sure PS4 exclusives won't be on PS Now till the PS 5 is out.

 

[Lebron]

hahahaha yeah, no.


I won't be using this after all I guess.

 

[Squalor]

$20 better mean a lifetime rental, haha.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

Pretty much what I expected and now completely off of my radar indefinitely.

Renting a game for the price of a used copy does not interest me, even if I can play it on Vita.

 

[nynt9]

1. Remove backwards compatibility
2. charge me to rent games I own but can no longer play
3. profit.....

Wait, when did they take away your PS3? Why can you no longer play them? Also when did they "remove" backwards compatibility? PS4 never had any BC.

 

[Stratn]

I could see this being a popular feature if they use it the way it was shown at the PS4 reveal, for instance I'm playing Destiny and my friend jumps in to my broadcast, and wants to join my session, but doesn't' have the game....No problem, just rent it for 3 bucks, boom! In the game and playing, no download no head aches.

This really could be a useful feature if integrated in the Eco system properly.

 

[Sendou]

$20 lolololol. This considering it is indeed a rental, on a beta service, you have to stream the content and apparently it's all PS3 games too at this stage? Those guys at Sony really know how to joke when they want to.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I'm very curious to see how well it works. If they're confident enough to put Street Fighter up there, it must be pretty solid.

 

[House Of Glass]

No subscription model, no go for me. I don't want to feel like I HAVE to finish games because I rented them for a week. I would try the service for a game to 2, but wouldn't rent many. I have absolutely no problem paying a decent amount per year for this type of service. 75$ 100$ up front as a PS+ subscriber for a huge amount of PS1/2/3 games seems fair to me.

The main problem with a subscription fee though, is that eventually the games are gonna run out and people will ditch the service unless they broaden their catalog to movies or something(see onlive). If I can play any game I want for a year straight, for a one time upfront fee, my chances of renewing are slim unless they bring other aspects into the service. Movies, TV ect...

And there's no way in hell I'm paying more than 10$ for ANY last gen game for a rental.

 

[spwolf]

I think it depends on the type of person really. I could see people choosing to rent a $60 game for $20 because they don't care about buying it outright and just want to finish it then delete it. If the duration was a solid amount of time it could make even more sense for someone like that.

Not everyone wants to have 200 game library's in their house.

most people dont have money to have 20-30 games, let alone 200... isnt the average something like 8-9 games per console lifetime?

I could see myself and many others renting blockbusters when they just come out, question is at what price.

Of course, real deal is offering latest games on any TV, any Tablet, any Phone... this is what is going to make them money... wanna play latest PS4 COD on your Tablet? Only $20 for a month... thats pretty cheap for parents compared to buying console+full priced games.

And plus, it will be only option for these tablets...

Obviously subscription is better choice, but we will get only older games via subscription anyway so the above model will always be viable for latest and greatest.

 

[Nymphae]

They are crazy if they think anyone is going to rent something for $20. I'm down for 3, but $20 is a decent sized game on Steam or PSN, so fuck that.

 

[off duty ninja]

If you've bought the title digitally in the past for PS3, you should get the PSNow version completely free.

They didn't invest all that money to let you stream for free.

I didn't invest all that money on digital titles on the ps3 only to have to pay again to play them on ps4. If they give us access to them I will play them but I certainly won't be paying again to play them.

I will likely only rent top tier AAA ps3 exclusives that I have never played before. In other words...Persona 5.

 

[LiK]

People should wait for the sub options.

 

[gofreak]

Gamefly is $23 a month for two games with no latency, $20 a month for one streaming game is bad

Not really apples-to-apples. With gamefly you need to own a specific machine to play the title.

The point of this is to give people on an iPad or a TV or whatever, access to the game with nothing more than a controller required. This service is really, mostly, for the vaster majority of people who don't have a console.

IMO if $20 gives access for a period of time that would allow someone to more or less finish with a game, that doesn't seem very unreasonable to me. I think it's likely that won't be the only option for a given game, though - it's probably a matter of shorter and longer rental periods available on the same game.

 

[Ocaso]

It's DOA if these are the pricing options. The only way it works is via subscription, perhaps with an Amazon Prime style system where you can also buy items not included in the subscription. But a la carte? No way.

Seems Pachter was right in his skepticism if true.

 

[Dunlop]

This is to stream games right? ( firewall at work can't check up squat)

no - lol at the pricing
yes - LOL at the pricing

 

[Cheech]

What's the difference between paying $20 to rent a game, as opposed to buying a $60 game, and then trading it in for $35-$40? Serious question. Tons of people do this. Maybe not so much on GAF, but good god. It's worth it for the sake of convenience! I personally hate going through the gyrations to trade games in.

 

[TheSpoiler]

It should work like a SVOD service like Netflix. A flat monthly fee that would grant you access to older titles like PS1, PS2 and other platforms like Dreamcast, NeoGeo etc, etc and a 'pay-per-view' style payment option for newer PS3 titles like Last Of Us.

This a' la carte option isn't going to take, at all.

That's why Sony is doing a sub service too. It's in the OP.

What's the difference between paying $20 to rent a game, as opposed to buying a $60 game, and then trading it in for $35-$40? Serious question. Tons of people do this. Maybe not so much on GAF, but good god. It's worth it for the sake of convenience! I personally hate going through the gyrations to trade games in.

Hell, only AAA titles and big drops allow for that trade in deal. Lesser games? You are outta luck.

 

[slit]

Yeah, have they lost their minds? This is why I don't like Sony having a market majority. Sooner or later, they turn insane!

Blockbuster rented games for 12 bucks for 6 days sooo

Yeah, and where are they now?

 

[TheSlySoul]

What "rental" period could possibly be worth 20 bucks?

A week? Blockbuster it used to be 3 days for 20 bucks for new games.

Honestly though I like the idea of rentals that are not Gamefly (because screw Gamefly). I am just not sure how steady streaming a game can be compared to getting an actual disc.

 

[Snaku]

Fuck off with those prices.

 

[JCizzle]

Pretty disappointing that this isn't turning into a Netflix type service. Sounds like it won't be a fit for me, I'm not paying that much to rent.

Edit :missed the last line, but that sounds like it's barely being thought through at the moment.

 

[Coolade]

I can't imagine who would rent a game for any period of time for $20.

Theoretically:
Buy Wolfenstein for $60
Trade it in for $40
You spent $20.

Rent Wolftenstein for $20
You spent the same amount.

 

[Karsticles]

I don't know why folks are focusing on the $20 instead of the $3. Wait for details, I say.

That said, I don't like the idea of streaming games. If my connection goes down due to a storm or something, my gaming is interrupted. No bueno.

 

[soultron]

I'll rent Vib Ribbon for life once PS4 gets MP3/CD support.