Support NeoGAF

[Monty Mole]

What about someone with kids? Jonny wants to play one game, timmy another and mum/dad another?

All without having to buy a console, just a dualshock and the subscription and away you go.

Yeah, good luck playing three streamed games at the same time reliably whatever your bandwidth.

EDIT: Actually I think I may have missed your point. But I can guarantee the games that Jonny and Timmy actually want to play aren't included. They want to play the latest PS4/XBO games.

 

[Hoo-doo]

15 a month for unlimited access? That's a great price. Even if you'd play a single game a month you'd probably break even because even bargain-bin games at Gamestop don't go below 10-15 if they aren't complete and utter shovelware.

Also, people should really stop confusing Playstation Now and backwards compatibility.

They aren't selling you backwards compatibility, they are selling you access to a huge library of games, available to play instantly.

They've said they are trying to work out a way for you to maybe play the old games you own, but this is not it. Just granting you access without a sub would leave huge openings for exploitation if the verification process is taking place in the user's home.

 

[Alpende]

My first reaction is that the price is a bit steep, still even as a PS4 owner I wouldn't get this. I already have enough games to play and can't see myself playing more PS3 games.

 

[TheSpoiler]

I would have gladly paid extra for a PS4 with the PS3's Cell chip incorporated for BC, but Sony had no interest in doing that.

Because it's a stupid idea. It didn't work well with the PS3, and it'd cost even more to make a good "emulator" in the PS4 from the PS3.

They'd have to jack up the price by quite a bit and hope the majority will follow suit.

 

[Spineker]

When you consider the fact that you're also chewing through a fuckload of Bandwidth, and are very likely not to have a smooth experience due to shit internet speeds, that price is pretty steep.

 

[Google]

Also, the people.complaining about a lack of backwards compatability need to read up on why it isn't there. It's not some cash grab or incompetence, it's because of a huge shift in tech used. To whine about it makes you look stupid.

Agreed.

Reading through this thread this morning I cant move for all of the negative reaction to a mostly positive move for a service you're not required to own.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

It isn't the same gum. The false equivalence in this thread is sort of incredible. I'm calling out your post but it might as well be many others.

You cannot play PS3 games on a PS4 in any other way. Period.

Right, on a PS4. You can play them on a PS3 for less money and actually own them though, which was my entire point. Playing it on a PS4 is part of the convenience aspect that I was talking about: you're paying extra money and giving up ownership rights to stream the games on your device of choice at any time. You can get the gum for $1 on PS3, but if you're currently on PS4 you have to pay $3. Paying for convenience.

I paid $60 for Rayman Legends on PS3 and for Guilty Gear Xrd PS3.
Worth every cent to me.

...which makes it a good deal to you personally, but not a good deal financially/mathematically. You can have your cake and eat it too, provided you're patient and are willing to do an extremely minimal amount of research before you buy.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Yeah, good luck playing three streamed games at the same time reliably whatever your bandwidth.

Could you teach me how the PS3 can play three games at the same time? If it can't, then how is this even a complaint. It means that you're getting access to a games library with big variety, so that everyone can find a game they like.

 

[kgtrep]

It'd be nice if the price had been a bit lower, and I don't see myself using PS Now anytime soon. But I can see that $45 for 3 months may have been the safe, optimal price for Sony when it's about to launch a new program, and how many will actually subscribe and how long they will stay subscribed are yet unknown. Hopefully, they will lower the average monthly price as PS Now gains more momentum.

 

[Vashetti]

Yeah its definitely puzzling. Er wait, isn't there a video card in the PS3? Wouldn't adding that make the PS4 more expensive and sell less? Wouldn't the manufacturing process be more expensive? Yes to all of those.

Where did I say it was puzzling? You are literally putting words in my mouth :s

 

[DieH@rd]

Can you access multiplayer or coop with ps now or only single player?

I think 15 a month is reasonable.

MP is fully supported.

 

[DavidDesu]

Seems reasonable. Could have been worse, could have been better. I hope this translates into £15 for a single month and £30 for three months. That'd be decent. I have a fast connection now so hopefully they can launch it in the UK sooner rather than later. Data centre in Glasgow please!

 

[lupe121283]

I actually like this pricing (I mean cheaper would be nicer) since I used to use Gamefly. Once I go through my backlogs of games, I might jump on this just to experience other games hopefully later this year.

 

[sora87]

Will bite in UK if we get PS2 games, notably all the PS2 that didn't get a physical release here. Trophy support wouldn't hurt either.

 

[Byron Bluth]

Lack of an annual option is lame. Will be waiting for that. $180 a year is too much.

 

[Captainbojanglesiii]

Sounds decent to subscribe to for a month or two, and just play as much as you can if you don't want to subscribe for a whole year.

 

[dmr87]

Sounds good, should add a 12-month sub as well.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Yeah, good luck playing three streamed games at the same time reliably whatever your bandwidth.

EDIT: Actually I think I may have missed your point. But I can guarantee the games that Jonny and Timmy actually want to play aren't included. They want to play the latest PS4/XBO games.

He obviously meant switching between those games.

And not only did you miss his point, you proved it by assuming every family is the same. Congrats!

 

[BkMogul]

Good price point, but I'm still not sold on streaming games. When I was in the beta, the games I played had blurry textures, long load times, and input lag. Hopefully they'll improve the performance now that they're implementing this feature, but for the time being, I'll stick with Gamefly.

 

[stryke]

Way much more data than movie streaming. Sony need to pay those bandwidth bills and building many own server farms (custom PS3 hardware running on server) around the world.

Consumers aren't going to understand and care about the backend complexities of running a game streaming service to justify the prices. It really will come down to pricing, catalogue range and how well they tolerate performance. Comparisons to services like Netflix are inevitable.

 

[Byron Bluth]

They really need to add a demo to try or something. Remote Play is garbage on Vita and Vita TV so I don't trust it.

I don't want to pay and have a shitty experience. I have yet to try it due to thto lack of a true test. That quick bandwidth test isn't good enough IMO.

 

[Monty Mole]

Could you teach me how the PS3 can play three games at the same time? If it can't, then how is this even a complaint. It means that you're getting access to a games library with big variety, so that everyone can find a game they like.

Wasn't a complaint, just saying it wasn't a pro vs PS3.

 

[Frabba]

Unlimited access to the library for less then the monthly cost of the "You can have two games at once!" plan from Gamefly, with the added bonus of not having to deal with shitty rental discs?

The price is quite competitive, imo.

 

[biglittleps]

I think price is pretty good and this launching this year in Samsung and Sony TV's then i can see its going to be good success for them.

 

[Servbot24]

So you have to pay for PS+ on top of this?

Now we have to buy the kids another Nintendo? They already have one!

 

[Ganzlinger]

Sounds reasonable. But I'd get this if it includes PS1/PS2 and a year deal.

 

[biglittleps]

They really need to add a demo to try or something. Remote Play is garbage on Vita and Vita TV so I don't trust it.

I don't want to pay and have a shitty experience. I have yet to try it due to thto lack of a true test. That quick bandwidth test isn't good enough IMO.

There is a 7 day trials available to try before subscribing for new customers

 

[10k]

I'll hang on to my PS3 instead. That's expensive for only some PS3 games. If it had PSP/1/2 games I'd be down.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Yeah, because offering a full backward compatibility would mean no HD remakes at all.
I mean, we lived with expensive PS2 and PS3, I think a 500€ PS4 with Cell chip wouldn't be so bad. Damn, I think people would buy that more happily too, because you can access the whole Ps1 and Ps3 library with that.

People lauded the 600 dollar PS3.

And I'm not going to pay 760 something dollars for a new console when others are selling it for 400. That's insane.

 

[biglittleps]

Sounds reasonable. But I'd get this if it includes PS1/PS2 and a year deal.

Yep, for me too. It will happen in 2 years i think then i can subscribe and play those games in my future PS4.

 

[EmptySpace]

Consumers aren't going to understand and care about the backend complexities of running a game streaming service to justify the prices. It really will come down to pricing, catalogue range and how well they tolerate performance. Comparisons to services like Netflix are inevitable.

consumers aren't that dumb to compare it to netflix. they see dvd/bluray/theatre prices and netflix prices. they will see the 60 bucks pricetag at gamestop or bestbuy and the 20 dollar price tag of ps plus.

consumers don't care therefore psnow should be cheaper? please.

 

[iceatcs]

Consumers aren't going to understand and care about the backend complexities of running a game streaming service to justify the prices. It really will come down to pricing, catalogue range and how well they tolerate performance. Comparisons to services like Netflix are inevitable.

Consumers will see the difference, the one is watch and the other is interactive.

Marketing word is important, like "UNLIMITED GAMING" They will blind and buy the sub.

 

[Byron Bluth]

There is a 7 day trials available to try before subscribing for new customers

For the new subscription one? Awesome! I missed that.

 

[McHuj]

I think they over estimate the value of old games. I'm sure their are people willing to pay for this service, I'm just not sure there are many

 

[ironcreed]

On top of PS+? Way too expensive, especially for one month of streaming.

Yep. I have no desire to pay for backwards compatibility. Especially when it is streamed.

 

[Cyborg]

Its a lot of money.....on the other hand if it works smoothly you will be able to play a lot of amazing games!

 

[shenglongdong]

If I recall, Sega Channel was $15 a month as well.

Bingo. Sub pricing is decent, but I agree with the others in saying that it won't be worth it until PSone and PS2 games have been added.

 

[Big Green Anus]

The price is better than I expected. I was assuming Sony was going to go for $30 a month due to games being bigger in bandwidth compared to movies. Depending on selection, I might subscribe, so I can play FFXIII for the first time, which opinions are quite mixed.

 

[DarthWalden]

That game list is super weak. I ain't paying more then a few bucks for this.

I actually think EA Access small list of vault games is massively more appealing and 75% cheaper.

Though I'm excited to get a crack at into the nexus for free.

 

[M3Freak]

What about someone with kids? Jonny wants to play one game, timmy another and mum/dad another?

All without having to buy a console, just a dualshock and the subscription and away you go.

I'm not saying there aren't any good use cases - there obviously are.

I think some people can't put themselves in others shoes, for some this will be a great service. For many well informed and prepared people like you find on gaf, it might not be. Doesn't mean it's a shit service, just not for you.

Yes, it's not always easy to see the world from another human's viewpoint. However, that is why demographics exist and work: people can be grouped together. I think Sony is going to find out the service will be tried by many, but not subscribed to consistently.

In any case, I know I'm not the target market. I still have a PS3. However, it's not going to last forever...what will I do when it dies?!?! Emulatior??! Looks like it...

 

[Ardenyal]

I'm also not convinced that Sony can provide high quality streaming services judging by their track record with PSN.

In my experience Gaikai was a lot better streaming service than Onlive.

 

[DoctorFling]

If this works then it's pretty cool. If not, then yikes.

 

[Love Deterrence]

Wow!!!! I was talking about this as a hypothetical just days ago. I may have to subscribe.

 

[Mikey Jr.]

they really need to release this service on tablets/ipads lots of whales in those environments

Ohh they will for sure. I think ps now is on some Samsung TVs.

So tablet support and more device support would be smart.

The Real question is if they put this on pc. Could get a lot of pc only guys to try some ps3 games that they have never played.

 

[Zippedpinhead]

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?

you do know that you can download and play PS1 games straight on your Vita, Right?

 

[M°°nblade]

Unlimited access to the library for less then the monthly cost of the "You can have two games at once!" plan from Gamefly, with the added bonus of not having to deal with shitty rental discs?

The price is quite competitive, imo.

Competitive? Maybe
Good? No

Sounds like a very expensive renting service. It's cheaper to buy those games on my PS3.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Yep. I have no desire to pay for backwards compatibility. Especially when it is streamed.

Well, you're in luck. Because this is not at all backwards compatibility.

 

[DarthWalden]

Well, you're in luck. Because this is not at all backwards compatibility.

No, it's an infinitely worse solution.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Why 760 dollars?
In US a PS4 is 400$, here is 400€.
I really don't understand where you took the 760 dollars price.
Implementing a cell would cost around 100$, so a PS4 would be 500$/500€, not 760$.

I did a conversation.

How do you know if implementing a cell would cost only 100 bucks. That's also extra labor and other fun work-eries, so it's not like it's just a straight 100 bucks extra to put in a cell.

Do you have a source for that in the first place?

 

[OtakuReborn124]

Does PS Now require PS+?

That's not a terrible price, but it doesn't fit with how I play games usually. It usually takes me months to finish one game because I A) don't play very often and B) have multiple games going at the same time. Discounts at a year (like $120 a year or $12 a month) would really sweeten the deal, but I admit, I still probably wouldn't dig in because I have a one of the old fat 60GB PS3s still in working condition.