• 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

liquidtmd

Banned
In terms of currency, this translates to £12 in the UK

I would bite at £12 a month. I wouldn't bite at what it's going to be which is £19.99
 

breakfuss

Member
You are right that the comparison you made doesn't work out too well. I'd like to think that the average person would understand the differences of streaming a game in comparison to music or movies.
Also, how is the cost of technology not the consumer's concern? If they want to use the service they should be able to stomach the cost. I'm not entirely sure but couldn't you compare this to paying for Ps+ or Live to play online? Sure they can probably eat the cost of allowing it free, but at the same time why should they?
In the end I can understand why this would not be worth it for some. The only thing that is keeping me from subscribing is the fact that it doesn't have any games that want. I imagine that will change when they increase their library. Until, that happens I'll probably just do individual rentals.

I don't mean to insult the "average" consumer but, yes, I think most will either not care or understand the differences. People are accustomed to a certain price range when it comes to streaming services. They'll see $20 & $15 and scoff at it lol. If there's any hope of this reaching the masses the price has to come down.

Again, I'm not being completely dismissive of PS Now. I love the novelty. Just as I embraced netflix in its early stages I want to do the same here. I just hoped Sony would be more aggressive at capturing an untapped market. Pretty tepid entry IMO.

If you are someone that values ownership over a library of games this is clearly not for you and never was going to be for you, in the same way Netflix and spotify are not really for the diehard movie or music aficianodo. Judging by the success of streaming services there is a sizable chunk of the mass market that doesn't give a shit about "owning" the movies they are going to just watch once anyway. I imagine there is a chance to target this same type of consumer with games. That's what this is. If you want to be able to own a library of ps2 and 3 games you should probably hang on to your ps2s and 3s.

I'm a HUGE movie/music enthusiast and Netflix/Spotfiy complement my physical collection quite nicely. Not sure why you're segmenting the audience this way. Streaming and physical both have their advantages and I assume a large chunk of people feel that way. Sure, I'll always buy the latest Zelda or Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted. But I wouldn't mind streaming/renting some overlooked gem from last gen. Or pulling up a PS1 classic on my Vita. This service has tons of potential for people who want a bit of both.
 

Mikey Jr.

Member
I'm hoping the reason it is taking a long time to get PS1 and PS2 into there is because they are adding trophies.

There was a patent or something that the system would recognize where you were on the disc and give you a trophy?
 

knkng

Member
Not having an option to purchase these games on the PS4 seems kind of sketchy to me. I know PS3 games wont play on the hardware, but I'd honestly feel more comfortable knowing that I could just purchase a digital key for a single game and then stream it that way. If I'm particularly busy, and just want to waddle through Final Fantasy XIII over the course of a couple months, I'd feel like an idiot paying $30-$40 just for that. I'd rather just pay $10-$15 for the FFXIII key and know that I own it forever.

Also, I know people want to expand the library, but it would be very upsetting if they used PS Now as the sole option for playing PS2 and PS1 games on the PS4. I wouldn't want to pay $15-$20 only to complete the first disk of Grandia. Hopefully digital ownership will still be an option in the future.
 

Shpeshal Nick

aka Collingwood
Well I guess I'm looking to the future when they add more games, and the fact that they are old games shouldn't be a problem. At $15 a month, you have that whole month to pick and choose games that you may have missed, or want to play again.

I'm not saying people have to use it, but it's a pretty good deal for what you will get. Also, how is the service taking away from time playing on the Ps4? If you don't want to play them, no one is forcing you. And if time is a problem, you can always rent individual games that catch your eye. Don't forget that Ps4 is not the only system you will be able to use the service on, it's just the first.

Of course it's optional and good on Sony for providing this option after the EA Access issue they had. Everyone is going ot perceive value differently (and for different reasons).

As someone who has kept all their old consoles and still currently has their PS3 setup, this service provides zero value for me (let's ingore the fact that Australia will most likely never get it anyway). I own all the games I want, get free ones every month with my existing Plus sub and can pick up digital or disc versions of older games I could want for cheaper than what would be $20-$30AU a month.

To be honest, I thought my scenario would be the one most GAFfers would be in. I assumed many of us kept our older consoles truth be known.

I guess I'm being presumptuous there. I guess I could see how this would be pretty good value for someone who ONLY owns a PS4 and absolutely nothing else. But to me it seems they're the only customers who would get any genuine value out of it.

While I haven't subscribed to EA Access myself, I personally see more value in EA Access because:

a) I'm not having to stream a game. I will have an actual copy on my HDD
b) The games are far newer
c) I get discounts on brand new games and can try them early
d) I't sonly $40AU per year. PSNow will most likely be almost $30AU a month.
 

Dragon

Banned
Of course it's optional and good on Sony for providing this option after the EA Access issue they had. Everyone is going ot perceive value differently (and for different reasons).

As someone who has kept all their old consoles and still currently has their PS3 setup, this service provides zero value for me (let's ingore the fact that Australia will most likely never get it anyway). I own all the games I want, get free ones every month with my existing Plus sub and can pick up digital or disc versions of older games I could want for cheaper than what would be $20-$30AU a month.

To be honest, I thought my scenario would be the one most GAFfers would be in. I assumed many of us kept our older consoles truth be known.

I guess I'm being presumptuous there. I guess I could see how this would be pretty good value for someone who ONLY owns a PS4 and absolutely nothing else. But to me it seems they're the only customers who would get any genuine value out of it.

While I haven't subscribed to EA Access myself, I personally see more value in EA Access because:

a) I'm not having to stream a game. I will have an actual copy on my HDD
b) The games are far newer
c) I get discounts on brand new games and can try them early
d) I't sonly $40AU per year. PSNow will most likely be almost $30AU a month.

EA Access and PS+ are competitors. PS Now is in its own space in the console area.
 

Shpeshal Nick

aka Collingwood
EA Access and PS+ are competitors. PS Now is in its own space in the console area.

Well, hopefully they'll get some competition then because at the moment it doesn't appear to provide much for anyone outside PS4 only owners or people who don't even have a gaming console.
 

MDSLKTR

Member
so for 1/4 the price essentially... and how would you plan on making any money with this again?

zvD3g.gif
 
Warhawk is on there. Nice!

Aw yeah! I have it on PS3 (disc and digital) and with this on PS4 (through PS Now) if I ever have friends over, we can do a LAN party (I assume). 4 players on the PS3, 4 on the PS4. I luckily have two TVs in my room (a 32" Vizio and the 24" PlayStation 3D Display) and both systems connected to them. A one day rental would be so worth it for that.
 

funkypie

Banned
PlayStation never. Far to expensive IMO even for someone who has never played many ps3 games. If you own a ps4 you will have many games to play on that coming up.

I personally would like to play a few RPGs I missed mainly on the PS2.
 

iceatcs

Junior Member
There is 8 PS3s in one rack server. Maybe 40 watt each (67 watt on PS3 Slim)

Quite lot of electric usage in small space, then server tower power too. Almost super server level in size, it won't be surprise there might be some server farm on the fire if poor maintenance.
 
Eh, this seems like it will flop to me. I just don't think the average person plays enough games in a month to want to pay more than double the price of Netflix for this.

This type of service just seems like a dead end for video games to me. They simply aren't consumed like films or television shows.
 

DavidDesu

Member
Remember this is just a very early beginning for this service. I think down the road the real money for Sony could come from game players who don't own any Sony consoles. The fact this will work with smart TV's in the future and people only need to buy a Dual Shock 3 or 4 to be able to do it is pretty amazing. Obviously it relies on a good connection and not all games are perfectly suited, but for most people it will be perfectly fine.

The big game plan eventually will be to have the entire range of games across the entire PlayStation console range available, PS1 to PS4 and beyond. The very long term game plan maybe for PS6 to not be a console but to just be a service offered through many devices cheaply. Considering how much internet speeds and services have come since PS1/2 days, and imagine 10 years from now streaming of games will certainly be a big thing. If Sony can be the Steam or Netflix of games streaming then they've got huge potential. They need to match that potential by being ambitious. I'd love to see every game ever made on a service like this, but baby steps are needed first :p
 

DavidDesu

Member
Eh, this seems like it will flop to me. I just don't think the average person plays enough games in a month to want to pay more than double the price of Netflix for this.

This type of service just seems like a dead end for video games to me. They simply aren't consumed like films or television shows.

I'm not sure. The fact that mobile gaming is booming must in part at least be down to the fact that everyone has a smartphone. It's simple, it's cheap and it's almost immediate for most mobile style games. The fact that everyone has a phone which can access these games is huge, and I believe a bigger factor than the nature of the games you find on mobiles. Give the average person the ability to get into console style games via their smart tv or even a tablet, cheaply, with no $300 up front purchase required and there's some potential there.

For me personally I feel like the service would be great for effectively demo-ing game types I'd never normally go out and buy. I can see myself getting into something I'd never be willing to spend £30-£50 just to try, the immediate access being a huge bonus as well as once you download that 20GB file you might not be feeling all that bothered about playing, the moment has passed.
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
I still feel like PSNow in its current form is just a way to recoup some R&D costs while improving the infrastructure for when streaming is actually a viable and popular way to play.
 

ThatStupidLion

Gold Member
12$/month is my reasonable sweet spot methinks

crushing my ps3 backlog atm though so, i'd really only be in for ps1/ps2 games...
 

Qwark

Member
Eh, TV series are alot easier to watch than to play a game though and your save files are gonna be tied to the PS now version of a game.

If I'm watching a show on netflix and it gets pulled before I get a chance to finish it, I can pick up the blu-ray version and start directly on the episode i left off on.

If i'm playing MGS 4 and it gets pulled half way through it, I need to get a physical copy and start from scratch

Somebody may have already corrected you on this, but save files are not tied to the PS Now version. At least, it wasn't for me when I played FF13. I put down $5 to start a new game on PSNow to try out the service (I already owned FF13 on PS3). Once my rental was over, I continued with that very same save file on the physical PS3 version of FF13.
 
Too much for old games. Should be a PS+ discount for $10 a month. Makes gamefly look a lot better, and you have access to new games as well. Just my thoughts.
 
Honestly, I think the majority of people may be better off just buying a PS3. What are PS3s going for now; 80, 100 dollars? Combine that with cheap physical games and I'm sure the price tag would be less than 180 dollars a year, and there's no time limit. I'm lucky in that Catherine is probably the only game I'd ever really miss on PS3, but for those who are excited about PS Now's streaming service...just get a PS3??

Edit: Okay, so PS3s have retained their value a bit better than I expected (~130 on Craigslist). Still, it's something to consider I think.

It's all about convenience, and the main consumers that PS Now are intending on catering to (those who have never owned a PS3 before, and eventually those who don't own consoles) aren't going to want to spend $130+ on another system and then x amount of money on games, and then have to deal with switching between their PS4 and PS3.
 

jwk94

Member
ummmm wait:

Hi Zingakun,
This is a great question. PS Now offers both individual game rentals and the upcoming subscription service.
The PS Now rental catalog already has 200+ games and games are added weekly so yes, you may find some games that will not be in the current subscription offering but can still be rented individually.
Subscriptions will give you access to 100+ games that get unlimited access and this catalog will evolve over time.

so it's not the whole catalogue.
 

I Wanna Be The Guy

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
It was obvious that a subscription would never be the whole catalogue. That would have been insane. Which is what made this announcement seem so WOW. They made it sound like it was. Pretty misleading if you ask me. They should have outright said in the post in a clear way that there are two separate game lists for rentals and the subscription.
 

Cidd

Member
Wow. So SONY's promised answer to providing a backwards compatibility option is to market a subscription service to some nebulous demographic that never played PS3 and charge money for it.

And people are okay with this.

Okay...

Maybe you could, you know just buy a PS3, just saying....
 

OccamsLightsaber

Regularly boosts GAF member count to cry about 'right wing gaf' - Voter #3923781
Maybe you could, you know just buy a PS3, just saying....

Nope, Sony is going to discontinue and press the master kill switch of the PS3 and recall every PS3 game ever made to force everyone into using PS Now. /s
 

Gandalf

Member
Divided opinions it seems. I think for the convenience and access to over 100+ games that's a decent price. It will surely grow as time goes on aswell. I'll give it a go when the subscription hits the UK.
 

davepoobond

you can't put a price on sparks
I am very confused as to why there are two separate lists.

Why do you buy some games now for 60 dollars but get some for free on PlayStation plus?

Same reason I think. Once a title hits a certain point in its life they bundle it in the subscription plan.
 
I'm a HUGE movie/music enthusiast and Netflix/Spotfiy compliment my physical collection quite nicely. Not sure why you're segmenting the audience this way. Streaming and physical both have their advantages and I assume a large chunk of people feel that way. Sure, I'll always buy the latest Zelda or Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted. But I wouldn't mind streaming/renting some overlooked gem from last gen. Or pulling up a PS1 classic on my Vita. This service has tons of potential for people who want a bit of both.

Then you are clearly not the audience i was referring to. A lot of consumers (id bet a majority) don't use Netflix to "complement" their physical movie collection. It's replaxed their collection. Same thing with pandora and spotify for music. I'm sure a lot of enthusiasts will get ps now subs to "complement" their game collections. But there is a reason sony is putting this thing in TVs and phones rather than tying it to ps plus or playstation consoles. They want mass market exposure. A subscription will likely get them that far easier than some ala carte model.
 
I'd be more excited in this if I wasn't certain 20 dollars will translate to 20 euros or so. Unless theres a real good deal or something, I'l stick with my physical copies of stuff.
 
Top Bottom