SvennoJ on 24 June 2014
| Mr_No said: If $60 is the price of a game you can keep permanently, the price for a 15 or 30-day rental should be calculated properly to offer flexibility for the consumers. 4 hours for $5 is madness. The time limit should be modified for 24 hours or 72 hours. The other prices aren't that bad, but they still need to be toned down. But if one wants to spend long-term on the service, this should be the service for a 1-year contract with PlayStation Now: - One PS3 game per month. You can choose the same game every month if you want. - Unlimited access to the PS1 and PS2 library which grows each month. - $69.99/yr The price should be fixed to a reasonable price that doesn't scam the consumer and that proves profitable for Sony and the developers. The problem here is that the developers choose the pricing for the games, not Sony. So we see here a chance for the developers to put competitive prices to get the edge on the other company. This is merely a suggestion, so any correction to this is welcome. |
70 a year, that's less than Netflix, madness. It takes a lot more resources to stream a game than to upload a 5mbps movie stream from hdd.
OnLive now wants to experiment with a $15 a month subscription to stream games you already own.
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2014/3/5/5474724/onlive-returns-with-cloudlift-and-onlive-go-subscription-services
$7 to rent a game for a week is not a scam. A digital movie rental is $6 for 48 hours.
Sure they can compete with onLive, get complete access to your digital library for $12 a month. Developers have already been paid when you bought the games, the $12 a month might be enough to run the games for you remotely.
