PlayStation Now Beta Prices and Structure -- What Needs to Change?

What about the game's I already own, I don't want to pay for a game when I already own it. So how about figuring out a way to get them free on PS now. Like say I take one of my games in to games top and they generate a code that I redeem on PSN thus unlocking that game.

I think PlayStation Now is a good idea but in the beta the prices and options for purchasing game time are unacceptable to me. I am not mad or upset however because it is of course just a beta! lol

What I would like to see honestly is a per month or yearly plan. I am done and have no interest in renting per game, my blockbuster days are over and I expect more now. Currently I use GameFly and I like that it is only 15$ a month with unlimited time.

So if PlayStation Now's service included games older than 1 year and old ones from PS 2 and PS 3 I would be willing to pay up to 25$ month for unlimited access. Normally I pay 15$, so 5$ more for the streaming right to play games on systems they were not made for and another 5$ a month for no down time, like shipping time with GameFly.

That's what I would be willing to pay, any more makes other services a better option for me.

Yeah, please don't ruin this sony. Ill just sell my ps4 and go strictly pc. Which I practically stream 2/3 of my collection already on twitch.

They never intended for it be anything but a rental service. I guess they figured since Blockbuster is gone now the rental business needs a new champion. I loved it. $24 a month for 2 of anything for as long as i wanted. Plus I could rent 2 games or movies every day for the month and not pay anything extra. Sure you could buy them but why ??? That is something they have to look into since like I said before I don't think they want another service to buy games digitaly. You can do that already.

I keep reading these comments about ps+ having great titles, not worth the difference in price, take away the free games for ps+. For PS4, the free games for ps+ are a joke. I understand of letting the small guys develop games, but have some standards at least. As for PS Now, if you take away the free games on PS plus, there is no reason to have it. So if you offer PS Now for 9.99 a month, and 12.99 for both it would pull in the money to manage the servers. Trust me, it's not as much as you think it is. Once the servers are in, the maintenance is minimal unless you want to anger a bunch of customers with a lot of downtime. The initial price of the servers is where the cost is. Which since the membership fees are a reoccurring thing, over time you make that money back. I'm kinda disappointed since I have been a customer since the beginning and have to pay extra if I want to play a ps3 game I already own on the ps4 since I'll have to rent it. It's funny that when the ps4 first came out they talked about how they were working on a streaming solution to the backwards compatiblity problems. There is just a handful of games that were able to upgrade from ps3 to ps4, for a fee of course, and you still need the ps3 disk in the ps4 before you can even play them. Not impressed.

Merge PS Plus subscription to gain acces to PS Now streaming service

- Remove the free PS Plus monthly games.

- PS Plus subscription keep the same prices as before, or cost a little more for PS Now access.

- Gain 90 hours/month to play the games of your choice on PS Now (unlimited acces is no where to be found because it cost SONY a lot of money to handle the game streaming servers) But i feel like 90 hours/month is MORE than enough for almost every gamers.

- Keep the rental option, but only a 2.99$/game options for 2-days rental and a 4.99$/game options for 7 days rental. Remove all the other ridiculous high pricing rental options.

If SONY gost this way, i'am all in for a PS Now backward compatibility futur.

playstation now should be the same as ps plus just 15 dollars more for a yearly subscription and we can stream all the games we want for free. Simple

playstation Now should be like ps plus just 15 dollars more for a yearly subscription and we be able to stream all the games for free for a year. Simple

Playstation Now is why they didn't get EA Access on PS4 - the prices are ridiculous.....they were during the closed beta and still are now.

technically if sony went to a netflix structure. it could have nes games and above. all threw 3rd party developers

I wouldn't mind seeing a nominal charge (or maybe even free) for 'backwards compatibility', either via a PS3 emulator download or by way of Playstation Now.

Based on the fact that Sony has a software PS2 emulator that they didn't offer a la carte for PS3 owners, I wouldn't hold my breath on a PS3 emulator.

You could, however, stream games from Playstation Now as 'backwards compatible' simply by putting your PS3 games in the PS4. The PS4 could then verify the disc similar to how CDDB verifies music CDs. Once a disc is verified, streaming could be done as long as the disc remains in the console.

what needs to change... the price. Make it a monthly/yearly sub.

MS copped a fair bit for their digital platform type plans with the XboxOne and Sony got praised for releasing a traditional console.

I said then that Sony were absolutely considering a similar approach, they just stepped back and let MS test the waters of a digital future and games as a service. I highly doubt Sony spent all that money on Gaikai just to stream last gen games.

This article to me highlights all the reasons this service is a flop. If you already subscribe to PS+ you have a steady stream of PS3 titles, and any other game you are itching to play is probably easy enough to pick up for cheap elsewhere. So what need is PS Now filling?

Now if there was a Nintendo now with their back catalogue that would be a different story.

Its funny, when I first heard backwards compatibility was out in the PS4 and many claimed it was fine. I said, Sony left it out, so they could resell you--your PS3 library later. I was right, but I didn't expect them to be so cavalier with the pricing. I would hate to see backwards compatibility give way to this;especially with the general unreliability of hardware that was so evident in this last gen. You have no choice but to buy old hardware, likely over and over or turn to broken models like this. If I wanted to play DKC2 for SNES, I don't have to buy it on virtual console, my original SNES works fine. I don't think I'll be able to say the same about a PS3 10 years from now. Now is likely to fail without sweeping change, I only hope if its tried again or attempted to be made into a standard for the industry. That someone will have the bright idea, to go with a subscription model.

If Sony is going for BS service of the decade I think we can pretty much say they've made it. This is a test of terrain really, to see how far the industy can push rentals over sales. Supporting this idiocy means slowly giving away the "privilege" to own a game. I'm not talking about the few bucks here and there, but renting games for the same price as retail buy equals a slow move in direction of ownership doom.

Sony needs to make some serious changes to reel me in here. Between Gamefly or just simply picking up a used PS3 and digging these games out of Gamestop's bargain bin, this represents one of the worst values in gaming today.

People like to say they passed on EA access for this, but I don't think so. They aren't even targeted at the same audience, or intended to do the same things. It's like saying they passed on selling hot dogs because they didn't want it to compete with their sheet music sales. However, where I take issue with this is them declaring EA Access to not be a 'good value', then trying to sell us on current PS Now pricing with a straight face.

It is kind of insulting, knowing that a company thinks you are THAT stupid, but it is what it is. My only hope for this service is that it is in beta, so they will hopefully offer a reasonable subscription option. If I were to be able to pay $10-15/mo and have access to the PS3 (and hopefully, eventually, the PS1/2) library at will, I would do that. This not only represents a good value for the money, but also alleviates other issues, like doing a 4hr/7d rental and having life suddenly get in the way, flushing your rental.

That said, they won't do that. From a business standpoint, and likely the reason these prices are so high, is because the PS3 (like the 360) is still a relevant console. They're still selling, as are the games for them, so at best we're looking at them trying to strike the best balance possible between sales revenue of the actual product, and the PS Now streamed version. Remember - They aren't doing this to allow PS4 users to experience the PS3 catalog they might have missed; they're doing this because they want to get the PS3 revenue they missed out of you now.

Better yet, just check peoples accounts on PSN tosee what PS2 and PS1 and PS3 games they own, then keep those games owned. Then give a discount for rented games if you actually played it.

Some games on ps now are forgotten and cost a little too much, especially with the gameplay you get. not a tolerable frame per second, which hopefully is fixed once the beta is concluded. Excellent idea nevertheless, the service is way ahead of its time. And once refined, sony will be making a killing. Especially with the next gen console games (if they ever decide to release them into the streaming service). For instance, in may 2 great games released on ps4, Wolfenstien, and Watch Dogs. Why would I spend $120, to only sell them back to Gamestop later? When I could rent them for $20 a week (ball park figure). And be completely satisfied with the gameplay I received. And instead of giving the player "7 days" of rental, it should be 7 days in game hours. Not 3 hours of gameplay, turn off your ps4 to go get some lunch, and forget about your rental for 6 3/4 days, and before you know it the rental becomes unplayable. Ps now has some refining, and whether or not these issues appeal, or even make a ruckus, Im just a entertainment consumer that would love some more bang for my buck.

This service didn't even exist to the public 1 week ago. The service alone is mind blowing, and here we are trying to critique such an incredible service. Sony for the win.

Sony: "EA access is not a good value!"

*Sony launches a beta service that charges $50 for a 90 day rental of a single game* ..........................

Another victory for the PS4

If Microsoft did this the whole world would be up in arms!

It should be like Netflix, and have access to the whole PS1 and PS2 libraries, I would put PS3 "greatest hits" only and once the system completes it's lifecycle in a couple of years start putting the whole library. Also if they could get the rights to the Dreamcast library for example it would be awesome.

Letting publishers control the prices is a terrible idea. All games should be priced the same and minimum rental time should be 48 hours. Sony, take back control of YOUR service and it may succeed. In its current form, it is doomed for failure. On that note, I would only consider using the service if it was a subscription, like Netflix. But I see the value in cheap rentals.

"Seems like a trend toward services that take ownership out of our hands"
I think it's time for us gamers to clearly state (with our wallets of course) that we want the ownership of our games, now and forever. Games are not silly stuff to kill time with, they are works of art you can enjoy many years later (I am about to start replaying Final Fantasy 9 after this comment as a matter of fact). I want my books and my games in my house, where I can access them whenever I want (without paying extra each time...)

Netflix works cause its simple as balls, £20 a month, pack it with obsolete PS and PS2 games and maybe 10-20 "big-hitters" with no rental fees and I'd be sold. Make things easier than emulating roms and Sony could cash in on me, but committing to these ugly little payments and skirting caveats isn't something consumers want anymore.

This is a total rip-off! Sony, you are acting like a video rental store in a black water country rather than an international big name. The reason people would be interested in PS Now is because they can play old tittles on the PS4, which could be a huge help in dominating this generation consoles war. What you did there is horrible and outright disappointing. So, lower the rental price for current-gen games and give us a subscription options to all of the old tittles of PS2 and PS3.

I want access to all the varies Playstation platform games I've previously purchased through the PS Store, and I'd accept that being integrated into PS+ though I don't think anyone should have to pay more for that.

What I will not do is pay a per game rental price, and doubt I'd even pay a subscription fee, though I do feel that would be reasonable.

If this is the future,everyone would play OnLive by now.

I really hope MS doesnt try this too and i hope they still didnt gave up the idea of an emulation app for the X1.

Pay once for the app and you can put every X360 disc in the X1 and play the game.

The prices vary from game to game. And, with some of them I would never ever rent at the current price. I think Sony is gauging what game and game type people are willing to spend money on. Some of the puzzle games are priced at 4.99 for 90 days. Which is not unreasonable and may be accepted if they put more games in this price range. Ultimately a subscription model will come and sure hope its a fair price one.

This is probably Sony's only misstep so far which is pretty good especially compared to X bone. They need to either revamp the pricing/time structure or reconsider the service. I am for owning my games so it doesn't affect me either way.