By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Trunkin on 01 August 2014
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
Trunkin said:
The problem with PSNow is that it's a rental service, and rentals are expensive as shit. In an age where you can get dozens of games for $50 a year, unlimited access to hundreds of movies and TVshows for $8 a month, or games less than a year old for $10 a pop, $8 for a week for a single outdated game just feels obscenely expensive.


PS Now isn't that expensive, PS+ is just a better value. However, PS+ doesn't give you the games you want when you want them. We just hope PS+ will add games we want every month.

Also, if you have a PS3 than buy these games on PS3. PSNow is ideal for users that want to play PS3 games on a platform that doesn't support PS3 games. If I had a Vita, I would definitely take advantage of this service when I want to play PS3 games away from home.

PSNow is a good deal for what it is, but what it is isn't as good a deal as what it could be if they just went with a subscription. If they could charge, say, $15 a month for unlimited access, that'd be great -- expecially with the multiplatform nature of the service. Even $20 a month to play whatever I want, whenever I want to would be better than rentals, IMO. I'm sure it all hinges on what the publishers are willing to accept, though.

I can see myself renting a month of a game for $12 under the right circumstances, but I'd hate myself for it all the same. Just like I hated myself for spending $6 to rent the Hobbit digitally just to see it in HD.