PlayStation Now debuts subscription pricing

[GotBored]

I'm not understanding the game selection point, it has over 100 games on PS Now how is that selection weak?

 

I know all these games are old PS games, but that's the whole purpose of PS Now isn't it? (Maybe you guys are expecting new PS4 games to come to PS Now?)

[Hedon]

This is a huge fail. Not only in price....but no way in hell are we going to play games at their convenience. 

[trooper11]

I'm not understanding the game selection point, it has over 100 games on PS Now how is that selection weak?

 

I know all these games are old PS games, but that's the whole purpose of PS Now isn't it? (Maybe you guys are expecting new PS4 games to come to PS Now?)

Maybe you feel the games currently on the service are enough to warrant the price, others like myself do not. A stronger ps3 selection would be a good start for me personally. Heck, I like the idea of getting access to a strong library of ps2 games as well.

Getting ps4 games would be nice and certainly would add value, but I own a ps4, why would I want to use PS Now for ps4 games at reduced quality based on my internet connection? Maybe as a way to demo games, but overall, getting ps4 games is not a big deal for me.

[GotBored]

This is a huge fail. Not only in price....but no way in hell are we going to play games at their convenience. 

 

Its a subscription all-you-can-eat service, you can play the games whenever you want while you maintain a subscription so I don't understand what you mean by playing games at their convenience, mind explaining? 

 

Maybe you feel the games currently on the service are enough to warrant the price, others like myself do not. A stronger ps3 selection would be a good start for me personally. Heck, I like the idea of getting access to a strong library of ps2 games as well.

Getting ps4 games would be nice and certainly would add value, but I own a ps4, why would I want to use PS Now for ps4 games at reduced quality based on my internet connection? Maybe as a way to demo games, but overall, getting ps4 games is not a big deal for me.

 

I don't think the games warrant the price for me personally because I have no interest in playing older PS games but this service is specifically tailored to those that do.

 

Here is a list of some of the games available on PS Now which you consider a weak selection; it has 100+ games and many first party and AAA titles.

 

• Alpha Protocol
• Anomaly Warzone Earth
• Batman Arkham City
• Ben 10 Omniverse
• Ben 10 Omniverse 2
• BioShock Infinite
• BIT.TRIP Presents

[dipsylalapo Supervisor]

This is debate around whether the price is fair is going down the same route as EA Access. 

 

It'll come down to each individual. For me, I don't think that it's a bad price to pay, but I'd probably pay for 3 months at a time and never more than once a year. There's always a time when less games are released and paying $45 to play all those games  (albeit you're renting) is not bad at all. 

[Hedon]

 

Its a subscription all-you-can-eat service, you can play the games whenever you want while you maintain a subscription so I don't understand what you mean by playing games at their convenience, mind explaining? 

 

 

 

Yup, while you maintain. That means we need to finish a game before the sub lapses. That is forcing us to play within a time constraint instead of at our leisure. We are also at the mercy of the frequency as to which PSN goes down, requiring us to play when it's back up and running.

 

You may not understand, but others feel differently than you do. Not to mention, it is grossly over priced in our opinion.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Which would include:

 

PS+

PSNow

PS Vue

Music unlimited 

Movie Unlimited

 

$65-$75 a yr....

 

That's nuts.  $65-$75 year wouldn't even begin to cover that.

Ferrari should offer a supercar for $30k too then. Feel entitled much?

 

These streaming services have huge bandwidth and server requirements on Sony's part.  They aren't pay once and be done with it.  $15-$20 on top of the $50/year PS+ charge would not begin to cover the resources they'd need to stream games (PSNow), TV (PS Vue), Music (Music Unlimited), and Movies (Movie Unlimited).  Every time you watch or play something you are using bandwidth and server resources.  Unlike PS+ where you consume Sony resources to download the free games initially but then you can play them as much as you like after that with minimal ongoing resources required by Sony.

[Showan]

That's nuts.  $65-$75 year wouldn't even begin to cover that.

Ferrari should offer a supercar for $30k too then. Feel entitled much?

 

These streaming services have huge bandwidth and server requirements on Sony's part.  They aren't pay once and be done with it.  $15-$20 on top of the $50/year PS+ charge would not begin to cover the resources they'd need to stream games (PSNow), TV (PS Vue), Music (Music Unlimited), and Movies (Movie Unlimited).  Every time you watch or play something you are using bandwidth and server resources.  Unlike PS+ where you consume Sony resources to download the free games initially but then you can play them as much as you like after that with minimal ongoing resources required by Sony.

 

 

It could very well retail for $75 - $100... Which would still be reasonable

If a consumer even remotely feels like they are being ripped off from the jump, it's a no go...

 

Ok... here is my personal opinion

 

PS+ = $50

PS Now = $10 (my price not Sony)

PS-Vue = $12 (my price not Sony) and don't know what content is provided

Movie Unlimited/Music Unlimited= $20 (my price not Sony)

 

That's $92 in USD. Sony can mark this up to $100...I wouldn't think people would be offended by this price point (but I've been wrong a billion times before)...

 

And name the service "Playstation World" or whatever...

[LaP]

The games list is ok. But the price is way too high.

[+Asmodai MVC]

It could very well retail for $75 - $100... Which would still be reasonable

If a consumer even remotely feels like they are being ripped off from the jump, it's a no go...

 

Ok... here is my personal opinion

 

PS+ = $50

PS Now = $10 (my price not Sony)

PS-Vue = $12 (my price not Sony) and don't know what content is provided

Movie Unlimited/Music Unlimited= $20 (my price not Sony)

 

That's $92 in USD. Sony can mark this up to $100...I wouldn't think people would be offended by this price point (but I've been wrong a billion times before)...

 

And name the service "Playstation World" or whatever...

 

What are these opinions based off? You just pull some numbers out of a hat?  I assume those are your theory for YEARLY prices.

 

PS+ = $50 (this is true and generally considered a good value by the gaming community)

 

PS Now is NOT going to cost less than PS+.  Streaming PS3 games requires dedicated PS3 hardware based server farms by Sony and TONS more bandwidth and PS+ does.

Right now Sony is offering it for $20/month or $45 for three months.  This is competitive with services like Gamefly but sure it's open for debate that it's a little high. I personally think it's about right but even if it is high it's not ridiculously high.  $10/year for this service is insane.  Extend the current pricing out to a year and it's $180/year.  There is no way Sony can cut the price to below $100/year and make a profit on it due to the resources required, let alone $10.

 

PS Vue and Movie Unlimited are roughly equal to Hulu Plus and Netflix.  Both of those cost $8 a month I believe so even giving a discount due to bundling with everything else and/or a more limited selection we'll say each is worth roughly $5/month.  So that's $10/month together or $120/year for both.  These also require more server bandwidth and resources than PS+ on the part of Sony.

 

Music Unlimited is roughly equal to Pandora which costs $5/month I believe.  Again dropping the price for Music unlimited due to the bundle and/or because of a smaller selection and I could see it going for $50 or so just like PS+.  This still requires a fair amount of constant bandwidth to stream music but nowhere near as much as movies and games.  If you have tons of users though it adds up fine.

 

So a yearly bundle with everything might be like:

 

$50 for PS+

$120 for PS Now

$60 for PS Vue

$60 for Movies Unlimited

$50 for Music Unlimited

 

There is no way they could offer a bundle of all that for under $300/year and make a profit and yet you think you should get it all for $75-$100!?!

Again, I'd like a $30k Ferrari super car then as well.  Both are equally ridiculous expectations.

[Houtei]

I'm surprised by the reaction by most people, I didn't see many games I would play myself but I didn't think it was too bad. Especially when EA is charging $5 per month or whatever it is for the small list of games they have.

 

I don't think I'd subscribe if I had a PS4 as its a little pricey for me for the choice of games but I'm very picky with my games.

For me the biggest difference here is ea is charging 5 for games you actually download on your xbox and play and sure im sure it has to "check in" at some point  but they play just like disc games where as sony is offering 19.99 for a STREAMING service with not that many of the good ps3 games available on it and you have to have really good internet and or be close to them to be able to play with out to much latency.  I tried renting a game on there in december and my 50mb down and 5mb up  was i gues playable but i was feeling a little annoyed the whole time cause i could tell there was almost a second delay of things happening when i hit buttons.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

For me the biggest difference here is ea is charging 5 for games you actually download on your xbox and play and sure im sure it has to "check in" at some point but they play just like disc games where as sony is offering 19.99 for a STREAMING service with not that many of the good ps3 games available on it and you have to have really good internet and or be close to them to be able to play with out to much latency. I tried renting a game on there in december and my 50mb down and 5mb up was i gues playable but i was feeling a little annoyed the whole time cause i could tell there was almost a second delay of things happening when i hit buttons.

It's made for people / locations with fast Internet.

Those with slow Internet like me are not the target audience for such a service. Hence why as the poster above you lays out to make a profit on this service from a smaller minority (broadband speeds are poor for many PS owners) realistic pricing has to be put in place. Video and music services can stream okay on poorer connections, games can't.

PS Now is not meant to replace PS+ or EA access or anything else of that nature, so the people it's not aimed at have to stop wanting it to be for them when it's not. Not currently anyway till global Internet connections improve, and then pricing may change.

[Showan]

What are these opinions based off? You just pull some numbers out of a hat?  I assume those are your theory for YEARLY prices.

 

PS+ = $50 (this is true and generally considered a good value by the gaming community)

 

PS Now is NOT going to cost less than PS+.  Streaming PS3 games requires dedicated PS3 hardware based server farms by Sony and TONS more bandwidth and PS+ does.

Right now Sony is offering it for $20/month or $45 for three months.  This is competitive with services like Gamefly but sure it's open for debate that it's a little high. I personally think it's about right but even if it is high it's not ridiculously high.  $10/year for this service is insane.  Extend the current pricing out to a year and it's $180/year.  There is no way Sony can cut the price to below $100/year and make a profit on it due to the resources required, let alone $10.

 

PS Vue and Movie Unlimited are roughly equal to Hulu Plus and Netflix.  Both of those cost $8 a month I believe so even giving a discount due to bundling with everything else and/or a more limited selection we'll say each is worth roughly $5/month.  So that's $10/month together or $120/year for both.  These also require more server bandwidth and resources than PS+ on the part of Sony.

 

Music Unlimited is roughly equal to Pandora which costs $5/month I believe.  Again dropping the price for Music unlimited due to the bundle and/or because of a smaller selection and I could see it going for $50 or so just like PS+.  This still requires a fair amount of constant bandwidth to stream music but nowhere near as much as movies and games.  If you have tons of users though it adds up fine.

 

So a yearly bundle with everything might be like:

 

$50 for PS+

$120 for PS Now

$60 for PS Vue

$60 for Movies Unlimited

$50 for Music Unlimited

 

There is no way they could offer a bundle of all that for under $300/year and make a profit and yet you think you should get it all for $75-$100!?!

Again, I'd like a $30k Ferrari super car then as well.  Both are equally ridiculous expectations.

 

 

I based it off of this...

 

PS+ we all see the value there...

 

PS-Now = as of now selection vs price... Not good

 

PS-Vue = It's new... I don't know if content is worth price point.

 

Movies= Netflix $96 a year I give you that...

 

Music = Pandora is free...

 

And here is the other thing... Most will look at $300 and not bother... They would buy a secondary console instead of buy a $300 service that only last 12months...

 

$300 is a Will U purchase that comes with a game,and $$$ left over...

[+Asmodai MVC]

I based it off of this...

 

PS+ we all see the value there...

So we agree there and can just set that aside. It serves as a good baseline though in that you agree that this is worth over $4/month and has very small resource requirements for Sony when compared to streaming services. Expecting a streaming service to cost less then this is already unreasonable.

PS-Now = as of now selection vs price... Not good

Compared to what? You're saying something Sony is charging $20/month or $45 for three months (which works out to $180/year) should be $10/year. How do you even begin to get there? Now maybe you could argue it should be $10/month like I believe OnLive is but that's still $120/year (as I listed) not $10. There is NO WAY Sony could maintain there required server farm and bandwidth to operate streaming games on $10/year all you can eat subscriptions.

PS-Vue = It's new... I don't know if content is worth price point.

I don't know if it's content is worth the price to me either but things can be reasonbly priced and I may still not be interested in them. So I'm not saying people should get PS Vue I'm just saying that it's unreasonable to expect this to be priced below $5/month or so.

Movies= Netflix $96 a year I give you that...

Yet you think Sony should offer both it and Music for $20? As it turns out Movies Unlimited isn't a subscription service anyway so you CAN drop it from the list. There is NO all you can eat version of it, it's just what Sony calls where you go to buy/rent movies from them.

Music = Pandora is free...

With ads it is and limits that I don't believe Music Unlimited has. So the equivalent to Music Unlimited is Pandora One which I believe costs $5/month. I believe Sony's cheapest tier is also $5/month so $60/year but if they gave a discount for bundling it then $50/year would seem like a reasonable price... as I stated.

And here is the other thing... Most will look at $300 and not bother... They would buy a secondary console instead of buy a $300 service that only last 12months...

 

$300 is a Will U purchase that comes with a game,and $$$ left over...

Of course most people would look at $300 and not bother. Bundling them all together like that would be a really bad idea and that's exactly why Sony didn't do it. You're the one who suggested they bundle them all together and then sell them for some ridiculously low price that would likely bankrupt Sony. Heck Sony knows $90 for 6 months or $180/year is more than people would be willing to part with no matter how good of a deal it may be and that's why they only offer 1 and 3 month subscriptions to PlayStation Now.

[Houtei]

Yeah  thats what i was saying. This service is seems pointless because the only people that benefit are the people next door to the datacenter hosting these games and the game selection for alot of people sucks anyways. I have reasonably fast internet to most standards a specially here in the US and i cant play comfortably. Yet services like Grid I can play without any noticeable lag at all.  Was playing batman arkam asylum last night on grid and ran flawlessly.  

 

I just wish someone would come out with a way to digitally rent games for 2-3$ a night or something that starts on first launch or something instead of this streaming stuff. I mean clearly they can make a game not run without internet connections to see if you are allowed to be playing.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Yeah  thats what i was saying. This service is seems pointless because the only people that benefit are the people next door to the datacenter hosting these games and the game selection for alot of people sucks anyways. I have reasonably fast internet to most standards a specially here in the US and i cant play comfortably. Yet services like Grid I can play without any noticeable lag at all.  Was playing batman arkam asylum last night on grid and ran flawlessly.

It's not pointless just because you're not the target market. As a PS3 owner I'm not the target market either but there are many people who are and I do see value in the service even if it isn't for me personally. The service is designed to allow its users to play games they don't otherwise own a system capable of playing. If you DO have a system capable of playing the game then you should look elsewhere to buy or rent the game, you are NOT the intended market. If you have a < 5 Mbps or high latency connection then this service is not intended for you.

As for the game selection it's not that bad for a service that's just starting up. It's going to continue to grow we're at the very beginnings of this thing. I have no idea how it compares to Grid but nVidia is giving away Grid temporarily as a trial balloon and so we don't know what they plan on charging once that trial expires (June 30 2015). Sony has been having a bunch of network issues lately though so I'm not surprised Grid runs better for you. Sony is absolutely going to need to shore up their networking for their streaming services to have a chance.

I just wish someone would come out with a way to digitally rent games for 2-3$ a night or something that starts on first launch or something instead of this streaming stuff. I mean clearly they can make a game not run without internet connections to see if you are allowed to be playing.

This is TOTALLY different from PS Now. PS Now is for games that even if you rented them and downloaded them they wouldn't run because your system isn't compatible with them. As for renting games though I don't think that's going to happen because while it might seem like a good idea to you I seriously doubt a ton of people are going to want to pay $2-$3 to download a 30+GB game only to have it stop working the next day unless they pay again. If the games were left on the drive so you didn't have to keep paying for them then renting games would very quickly fill up your drive with as big as games are today. Plus it would take forever to download them on slow connections and in theory if you have a fast connection (assuming Sony eventually works out the kinks in their network) you're probably still better off streaming them.

[compl3x]

Yup, while you maintain. That means we need to finish a game before the sub lapses. That is forcing us to play within a time constraint instead of at our leisure. We are also at the mercy of the frequency as to which PSN goes down, requiring us to play when it's back up and running.

 

You may not understand, but others feel differently than you do. Not to mention, it is grossly over priced in our opinion.

 

 

I don't really know of any subscription that allows you to keep using something after the sub ends, so that doesn't seem like a fair criticism. I'd be inclined to think Sony would extend subscriptions to compensate for any extended downtime.

[Hedon]

I don't really know of any subscription that allows you to keep using something after the sub ends, so that doesn't seem like a fair criticism. I'd be inclined to think Sony would extend subscriptions to compensate for any extended downtime.

It's just an opinion. Take it or leave it.

[compl3x]

I didn't take issue with whether or not it is an opinion, I was simply pointing out that no subscription system I know of allows people to continue using a service after the sub ends. Criticising Sony's planned system because they use the same sub model everyone else doesn isn't a reasonable criticism.

 

Do you know of any subscriptions that allow you to keep using a service after the sub ends?

[Hedon]

I didn't take issue with whether or not it is an opinion, I was simply pointing out that no subscription system I know of allows people to continue using a service after the sub ends. Criticising Sony's planned system because they use the same sub model everyone else doesn isn't a reasonable criticism.

 

Do you know of any subscriptions that allow you to keep using a service after the sub ends?

I will say it again....it forces us to finish games at their time frame. I will criticize (well WE) that system, especially at that horrid price model. It's not only reasonable to criticize that, but its worthy of mentioning.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

What other system do you propose then? A one off fee of 5.99 to play all the games forever? -_- No subscription based service exists that carries on serving you after you unsubscribe.

And why do you keep saying we in your posts. Your opinion is your own, unless there's a small collection of minions following you that just reiterate your opinion. I don't even see one single person criticizing the subscription model on Neowin, just the price. So unless you have minions or an imaginary friend, or those "official PS forums" are full of complaints who is we?

[compl3x]

I will say it again....it forces us to finish games at their time frame. I will criticize (well WE) that system, especially at that horrid price model. It's not only reasonable to criticize that, but its worthy of mentioning.

 

 

That's what a subscription is: you pay a price to use a service for a specific amount of time. If you don't like the pricing that is a reasonable criticism, but arguing you don't like subscriptions because they impose a time limit is... odd?

[Hedon]

That's what a subscription is: you pay a price to use a service for a specific amount of time. If you don't like the pricing that is a reasonable criticism, but arguing you don't like subscriptions because they impose a time limit is... odd?

Odd to you, yes. All good. We are not getting anywhere with this, so it is just time to move forward.

[dead.cell]

It's just an opinion. Take it or leave it.

Definitely leave it. I don't ask someone who hates metal what they think of Shadows Fall or Machine Head...

 

That would just be silly. It should just be noted that your post definitely has less weight than others so we shouldn't read much into it, instead of trying to change the way you feel about it.

 

Anyway! I personally think the idea has good foundation, but nothing just magically works unless you plant the seed and start to grow it. PS Now has to start somewhere. While many of us might be jaded by the fact that we may have played a lot of this content already, there are still plenty of people getting into the scene and it would be a great answer for someone who really wants to jump in and play.  Remember that the gaming industry is growing, and imagining more people being able to enjoy what we do already only opens up more conversations.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Definitely leave it. I don't ask someone who hates metal what they think of Shadows Fall or Machine Head...

That would just be silly. It should just be noted that your post definitely has less weight than others so we shouldn't read much into it, instead of trying to change the way you feel about it.

Anyway! I personally think the idea has good foundation, but nothing just magically works unless you plant the seed and start to grow it. PS Now has to start somewhere. While many of us might be jaded by the fact that we may have played a lot of this content already, there are still plenty of people getting into the scene and it would be a great answer for someone who really wants to jump in and play. Remember that the gaming industry is growing, and imagining more people being able to enjoy what we do already only opens up more conversations.

For someone who buys a PSNow able TV entry point could be picking up or borrowing a Dualshock controller. Travelling a distance to your family/friends who only own a smart TV with PS Now support? Take an easy to carry controller and rent a game one off for the night. That kind of impulse in the future. Especially if a lot TVs get future support.

It's why I currently see a possibility a service like this could do well in hotels, airports or places like that. If you can rent a game one off, which you can, people will be okay doing that. Just like they are renting a movies for