JOKA_ said: Sony is fucking high if they think people will pay that EDIT: That was my knee-jerk reaction to the 4 hour price. The $30 for 90 days isn't that bad. |
These prices aren't standard. Publishers seem to set the price.
4 ≈ One
JOKA_ said: Sony is fucking high if they think people will pay that EDIT: That was my knee-jerk reaction to the 4 hour price. The $30 for 90 days isn't that bad. |
These prices aren't standard. Publishers seem to set the price.
4 ≈ One
NobleTeam360 said: Only price I have a problem with is 5 for 4 hours lmao. 8 for 7 days could be a little lower, other prices are fine though. |
Yeah same here. They should change the 4 hours option into a few days worth, the rest is fine
sundin13 said:
|
Well, it is still in beta. I doubt the pricing is finalized, or at least, cannot be changed at this point.
Hmmm yeah I can't see myself paying those prices.
Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: LOL, welp, hopefully when its ready for prime time, they will fix those retarded prices and not flop like how Onlive did or else this will be another way for Sony to bleed unnecessary money Hope you guys like the lack of real backwards compatibility! |
What do you mean?
Anyway, the pricing is ridiculous, but it's only in beta. Hopefully they iron the kinks out, because pricing on the PS Store has been pretty great the past few years (excluding a few particular publishers).
Dr.Henry_Killinger said:
Better than 600$ console, especially when I really only care about playing 5~ games from previous gen system |
With those kinds of prices, I think people will be paying more than $600 in the long run considering its per game... Heck, you can find most of those games for cheaper if you buy it from ebgames... FFXIII-2 costs $15 at eb games right now and not to mention it will never expire. Also many sites are saying as of right now, its a sub-par experience with noticable delays in input and lower quality depending on your internet (which is obvious since its streaming).
But anyway, what I was hoping from Playstation Now was a subscription service like Netflix... You pay say $10/month and you have access to say any 5 games per month that you can select from and play but not on a per game rent bases... Obviously I am not saying I would rather pay $600 for a console but if they keep the prices like that, I think this thing wont do very well when its out
With that being said, thats why its a beta so hopefully, they will fix this shit and the other issues and hopefully, this will be a great alternative to backwards compatibility and not a terrible one
PC Specs: CPU: 7800X3D || GPU: Strix 4090 || RAM: 32GB DDR5 6000 || Main SSD: WD 2TB SN850
DerNebel said:
Again renting something for an extended amount of time is hardly ever cheaper then just buying it. |
So you're defending the ridiculous pricing because it's a rental? Instead of paying these outrageous prices, youu could purchase a PS3 and the games. You won't be able to play these games on the Vita or a tablet, but you'll pay a lot less and you'll own them.
How does this compare to existing rental services?
The 7 days and 30 days option look decent.
though imo they should make a 1-2 hour option for 1-2 bucks to demo games.
Also they should add a buy option which gives you a discount of (half) the rental fee or something.
The bottom two are the only pricings I don't like. The top two are priced fairly in my opinion.
I am the Playstation Avenger.
|
kupomogli said:
So you're defending the ridiculous pricing because it's a rental? Instead of paying these outrageous prices, youu could purchase a PS3 and the games. You won't be able to play these games on the Vita or a tablet, but you'll pay a lot less and you'll own them. |
Yeah, you really don't seem to understand how rentals work. Renting a movie for 90 days wouldn't be cheaper than buying it either, that's not how it works.