ps now available

hi everyone

PS now is available to all in ps4 store in beta form. i find that the prices are not that cheap looking at some games 4.99 for 2 days and 7.99 for 30. Most of these games you can get cheap and likely gamers will still have old ps3 so you could pick these up less then fiver to keep.

what�s your thoughts?

The prices and basic structure are a joke as already discussed by myself and other in the forum on numerous occasions .

I deleted the program weeks ago as i won't nothing to do with this type of greed,like you say and everybody else on here paying £4.99 to rent a old playstation 3 game for 2 days is taking the [censored] Big Time.

Im struggling to understand who came up with this pathetic idea and price plan because i wouldn't pay £4.99 even to own the older game when you can pick them up for £0.99p or just over on a retail disk,

Edited by time2die (Thu 16-Jul-15 08:02:38)

the problem is sony see this as a cash cow, instead of an added value experience for their customers.

the fact microsoft and sony taking different approaches may be related to their health.

microsoft billions in profits from corporate windows and office, 10s of billions in the bank, sony having to sell assets every year to keep going.

Edited by Chrysalis (Thu 16-Jul-15 11:01:15)

I don't think it's greedy at all, purely business.

Technically of course, it can't really be expensive if there is nothing comparitive. There is a huge investment that needs paying off if we are to see technology like this develop. Many people will spend a fiver of their disposable income on two days of gameplay, just as we all used to happily rent an hour and a half of VHS gold every weekend. It's aimed purely at the casuals. And if you want to buy it for the same price on a disk from a far flung eBay destination, then wait for it to arrive, knock yourself out.


But (just as you and I did with the PS4) some people will embrace this tech early and bring the price down for the rest of us. What's the problem with that? It's only old stuff you've already played or never wanted to play in the first place.

Maybe the prices are intended to control the Beta? If it were a pound a pop, I suspect you would have single handedly crashed the system already, by playing every available title for 30 seconds each.

Edited by mrnelster (Thu 16-Jul-15 18:52:57)

had a look, yeah its a complete joke.

surprise no media fuss over it, which is what made them sort of back down in america.

Its Greed mate no matter how you look at it and you surprise me in those comments basically defending Sony.

You can not possibly charge such inflated prices for games from the playstation 3 era and twice as much as the actual retail disks on sale in the shops.

Add to that you don't even own them and have a 2 options of a 2 day rental or 30 day and its another kick in the [censored]......

This will never ever take of and only the local village idiot would buy into such a stupid greedy idea,and i don't think even Swanny will be interested

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

I don't think it's greedy at all, purely business.

Technically of course, it can't really be expensive if there is nothing comparitive. There is a huge investment that needs paying off if we are to see technology like this develop. Many people will spend a fiver of their disposable income on two days of gameplay, just as we all used to happily rent an hour and a half of VHS gold every weekend. It's aimed purely at the casuals. And if you want to buy it for the same price on a disk from a far flung eBay destination, then wait for it to arrive, knock yourself out.

But (just as you and I did with the PS4) some people will embrace this tech early and bring the price down for the rest of us.

... nested quotes trimmed ...

Wrong,if people buy at these stupid prices then Sony will not reduce the costs.

What's the problem with that? It's only old stuff you've already played or never wanted to play in the first place.

Maybe the prices are intended to control the Beta? If it were a pound a pop, I suspect you would have single handedly crashed the system already, by playing every available title for 30 seconds each.

Its Greed mate no matter how you look at it

Conversely, I'm not at all surprised that you cannot comprehend the rationale.

you surprise me in those comments basically defending Sony

You seriously didn't ought to take it down this road, trust me.

u never know they may include it in the ps plus subscription. instead sony giving you what they pick maybe they will let us choose the 2 ps3 games from ps now for a month.

Trust me.........Why ? You a Doctor .

Hey i know where you live ........Trust me you don't want to go down that road......Theres a lot of pot holes

Huge Investment you say......Hows that ?

May be Sony should invest in a better server infrastructure which at least matches Xbox Live.

See im not in favour of either Sony or Microsoft and if one or the other does something completely stupid I'm of a mindset to say what i think

You can't be ripped off if they are the only people offering that product, in that format. Nobody has a gun to your head. The Blockbusters analogy is very simple.

Sony paid £380,000,000 to further a tech that was struggling currently. OnLive were testament to that, and here's their closing home page:

Sony has acquired important parts of OnLive. Due to the sale, all OnLive services were discontinued as of April 30, 2015.

As the first-ever game streaming service of its kind, everyone who has ever played a game using OnLive has contributed to the technology and its evolution in some way. We�re immensely proud of what�s been achieved and extend our heartfelt gratitude to you for being a part of the OnLive Game Service.

Thank you from all of us at �
OL2, Inc. (aka, OnLive)

In the long run, we may even be thankful that Sony picked up the ball and ran with it, who knows?

There seems to be a sustained effort on this forum very suddenly, to turn it into a platform centric battleground for bedroom dwellers. The facts apparently mean nothing anymore, and anybody bright enough to understand the business case is labelled as a troll. Kev the blogger is now the leading authority on all and everything. Last year MS were the target, this year Sony. Go figure.

It's mostly like a women's lib meeting around here now.

there is a clear alternative tho.

Buy a ps3 (or keep ps3 already owned) and then buy the games for the ps3.

oh look you can own ff13 for twice the price of a monthly rental from here, brand new.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Square-Enix-Final-Fantasy-XI...

or used for the same price as a monthly rental here http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Final-Fantasy-XIII-PS3-Pla...

No internet connection required either.

The only benefit of the cloud gaming in this instance is convenience, it does save the hassle fo connecting up a ps3, or buying one if you dont have one, but at those prices there wont be much demand and it will crash hard. It reminds me of nintendo's silly pricing for its snes games on the wii-u, note how nintendo never expanded that service probably because no one is buying the content, but at least on the wii-u they purchase but not rental prices.

Cloud gaming has merits and a place but it tneeds to be priced sensibly.

Either these games need to be about 50p a week, or they need to goto a netflix style subscription. I also think purchasing the right to play for the lifetime of the service is also viable, so maybe £7.99 purchase not rental.

Edited by Chrysalis (Fri 17-Jul-15 07:34:21)

I would be happy if you paid say £100 a year max subscription to download and play at your leisure games of your choice.

So a subscription service similar in style to Playstation Plus is a much better idea and would make more sense.

They may well have paid a lot of money for the infrastructure but that doesn't make there stupid game rental prices acceptable.

I will be first to admit i waste quite a lot of money buying games i shouldn't buy in the first place,but when i first loaded Playstation Now i nearly fell of my chair when glancing at there rental prices for the older games.

Some of those game i originally bought cheaper on the playstation 3 in the first place,and I'm talking digitally downloaded from the store when they became available .

Its a bit like Sky TV and BT paying 5 billion pounds for premier league football and then having the audacity to try and put mine and everybody else is subscription up to around £90 a month because of there stupidity,

Its not Bt and Sky paying the money its us the customers .

Edited by time2die (Fri 17-Jul-15 08:53:32)

One of 100s of sites that feel the same.

even worse no exchange rate either.

so the original prices were 4.99usd and 7.99 usd, which they did a 1 for 1 swap to gbp.

Better suited for city idiots

The only benefit of the cloud gaming in this instance is convenience, it does save the hassle fo connecting up a ps3, or buying one if you dont have one

Eureka...

Those prices are a joke, it will fail unless they make it more realistic. A new service like this should start with lower prices even if it is at a loss to encourage use. Take Netflix for example, I am paying a legacy price of £5.99, someone taking the same sub now would pay £8.99 p/m.

Surely a cheaper price would actually make more money through much more sales.

It's called greed

Its extremely disappointing to say the least and based on those rental prices i predict a Epic Fail Similar in style to Microsoft Original Xbox One reveal.

It may well attract the lazy type gamer with [censored] loads of money,but thats as far as it goes.

For this to work it has to be subscription based on similar prices to Amazon Prime or Monthly Netflix prices.

Personally when i first installed the beta i was horrified and gobsmacked when i looked at what was on offer and the crazy prices attached to them for a few days rental.

I even got a email from Sony saying that they had reduced there prices,having opened up the program again to check this out i saw nothing that made me remotely interested and deleted the program.

I really don't get why Sony who had such a lead has now gone down the original Microsoft Greedy route when Microsoft themselves have learned there lesson and are going in the opposite direction and trying to put smiles on Gamers faces once again.

Sony seem hell bent on [censored] gamers of,and what the hell is going on with there download speeds the last month or so,i booted Killzone shadow fall up for a revisit only to be greeted with a 3 gig patch which said 12 hours and was downloading at a crawl.

Yeah as they are older games I don't see why the subscription should be any more than what Amazon and Netflix are charging... those prices are more what you would expect for a newly released game.

In reply to a post by astateoftrance:

Those prices are a joke, it will fail unless they make it more realistic. A new service like this should start with lower prices even if it is at a loss to encourage use. Take Netflix for example, I am paying a legacy price of £5.99, someone taking the same sub now would pay £8.99 p/m.

Surely a cheaper price would actually make more money through much more sales.

I couldn't agree more with any of this post.

However:

It's called greed.

I cannot imagine for a second how any of you who have chosen this word, have thought past your own entitlement for more than half a millisecond.

So you can all perhaps answer these questions for me individually:

A) How many company's are offering this service?
B) How many subscribers and for what duration, are required to pay back a cost of over half a billion?
C) What is your opinion on the £8000 price tag of the first plasma flat screens?

And just to be clear before anybody messes themselves in the panic to get their answers on a postcard, I think the prices are too high, the rental periods too short and the games on offer derisory.

I just have a problem with labelling solo tech development as greed. You can always wait like you did with your tellys.....or spend half a billion of your own dosh before acting like judge and jury.

Alot of it is a mental thing.

These companies will cut off their own tongue if ti means ensuring their product doesnt go for cheap.

They probably would rather sell 100x£7.99 subs than 100000x0.99 subs, simply to stop people getting it for a lower price.

Its like how the music companies some how convinced a judge they entitled to compensation if people make personal backups of music cd's, crazy.

A) How many company's are offering this service?
B) How many subscribers and for what duration, are required to pay back a cost of over half a billion?
C) What is your opinion on the £8000 price tag of the first plasma flat screens?

Answer to Question 1��.Just Sony as nobody else is stupid enough

Answer to Question 2��..125,000x £40 recoups that amount spent,which is small fry compared to the 50 million subscribers they have at present and thats a estimate.

Answer to question 3��First Plasma were more like £20.000,and now i didn't buy one��.We bought 2

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

These companies will cut off their own tongue if ti means ensuring their product doesnt go for cheap.

They probably would rather sell 100x£7.99 subs than 100000x0.99 subs, simply to stop people getting it for a lower price.

They'd rather gross £799 than £99,999? I thought they were meant to be greedy?

Answer to question 3��First Plasma were more like £20.000,and no i didn't buy one��.We bought 2

Answer to Question 2��..125,000x £40 recoups that amount spent,which is small fry compared to the 50 million subscribers they have at present and thats a estimate.

You can't mix up the PSN and PS Now.

The actual figure would be 12.5 million at £40 per year, for one year, to pay back a 500 million investment.

So 3 million subscribers, at £6-99 a month, would pay back 500 million in 2 years. That doesn't take into account running costs and any profit, so a 4 year payback might be more realistic. I guess the final figure will depend on the likely uptake of a full launch.

Answer to Question 1��.Just Sony as nobody else is stupid enough tongue

On that we do agree! That latency makes it a risky tech investment. Why anybody would want to play this way is beyond me, so I suspect there must be a sizeable casual market, or Sony foresee a leap in infrastructure technology that we don't know about. I think it's safe to assume Microsoft's Azure might have something to do with it though.

Personally I wish they would spend the money on the little things, like upgrading the game trailers on the PS Store to full HD. A low resolution compressed mess, really is a stupid way to advertise the look and feel of a game.

In reply to a post by mrnelster:

Personally I wish they would spend the money on the little things, like upgrading the game trailers on the PS Store to full HD. A low resolution compressed mess, really is a stupid way to advertise the look and feel of a game.

Or spend it on the server side because its certainly not as good as Xbox Live.

they are greedy, but even when they realise the sales will be rubbish, they will refuse to drop for the reasons I stated.

The whole entertainment industry has this problem of overvaluing their content evidenced by the movie companies stubbornly sticking to medieval practices.

I hope it crashes them. Greedy [censored]