Sony's pricing is a bit ridiculous, and what fans want is also not really fair  to Sony.  $8, $10, $30, etc, for every game available in the PS Now catalog is a bit much for the service, but I thought of a way that fans and Sony could benefit and it's reasonable as a rental fee, if slightly overpriced.  Is this ever going to happen?  Probably not, but here's the idea. 

The service should still be a rental service, but something with a $30 monthly fee for two games at a time.  It's digital though, so how would it work?  They should have a five day waiting period when getting a new game.  This way people can't jump from game to game to game.  Let's say Sony has 200 games available and you get to choose any two games you want.  Say, Ratchet and Clank All 4 One and The Last of Us.  You play Ratchet & Clank for five minutes, immediately realize it's a piece of sh*t and go to switch it out, but you can't, you have to wait that five days which there's a timer counting down to let you know when you can switch it.  So you go over and play The Last of Us.  If five days in you're still playing The Last of Us, you can still switch out Ratchet and Clank once it reaches the time limit so your next game will start gathering time.  You don't have to be playing it, as soon as you switched the game out it starts counting down that five days, so you can keep playing the other game and then go to it when you're done.  Switching The Last of Us out to the next game you're interested in.

The way it works out is about 12 games a month on average.  For the consumer, you'd basically add it up like two games per every five days.  So $6 for two games every five days.  You can't really play both games at the same time so it's not really that much cheaper, but you also have variety.  It works in Sony's favor if say one person rents The Last of Us and that's all he/she plays that month.  Instead of $30 for 90 days of The Last of Us, it's $30 for 30 days of The Last of Us.

As I said above, it's not much cheaper, but if you play through games quickly and take advantage of the service, it'd  benefit both you as a consumer and Sony.  Maybe Sony could even add the option of a $2 fee for exchanging the game without waiting the five day waiting period.  If both games still aren't in that waiting period and the person wants to exchange the game out, they can do so early by paying the $2 fee.  It's all about perception really, and I think most people wouldn't mind paying for the subscription service if it's laid out how I explained.

Can't believe they have a 4 hours option though? That seems ridiculous.

I'm pretty sure they just want to see how the players react to this. It would be suicide if they don't change.

Here's an idea.

- Price Playstation Now at $15 per month
- Get access to all ps1/ ps2 & ps3 titles available as long as you are still subscribed to the service.

That's it.

subscription 79.99 a year . or $ 2.99 a month game juts 2 prices thatsit

That's unreasonable though.  Sony might as well not even bother with the service then.  Even $30 a month with access to all games without some sort of limiter is unreasonable.  They'd make more money forcing this ovepriced model on us, because you know there are people out there that will pay for it.

As a Ratchet & Clank fan I..... Have to agree with that...

Without limits, this is pretty much impossible. They can't do it as cheap as Netflix. Streaming videos is a lighter workload and a single server will be able to attend dozens of people easily. It's a matter of bandwidth and storage and that's it. A game streaming demands special hardware and one of their custom servers can attend 4 people at time. They need processing power, bandwidth (but with low latency) and storage (more than videos since films are stored in pretty crappy quality codecs and games can be as big as a full Blu Ray). That would be simply equivalent to burn their money.

I was thinking of a similar pricing idea. However, I don't think many people would pay $30 a month. I could see $20 being more realistic but they'd probably have to add more restrictions.

Pretty much that. They talked about adding a subscription option when they announced the service and probably will be something like you posted in the OP, with some kind of monthly limit. But thinking about it, it doesn't make that much difference if you play two or twenty games, you are using a full processing slot from a server anyway. Of course, publishers fees would be reduced with less games and storage problems too.