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.