By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - How Playstation Now should be priced.

torok said:
sabastian said:

- Price Playstation Now at $15 per month


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.


Do you have a link that talks about the 4 people to 1 server and other hardware stuff?  I would be interested in reading about that.



Around the Network
sabastian said:
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.


i dunno, i'd prefer a subscription service too but that price would probably put the entire video game industry out of business.  the average gamer probably spends more than $15 a month on games.  i guess psnow is only for older games right now but we've got to assume ps4 titles will be supported at some point.  i just know that at that price publishers wouldn't put their games on psnow until ~3-5years after release.

for reference: gamefly which only gives you access to 2 games at a time with a mailing turn around period in place cost $22.95.

 

i just want cross buy between psn and psnow.  i buy the game on psn and then play it immediatly on psnow while waiting for the download to complete.  once the download is done i switch to playing locally and my save file is moved over to local as well.  if i'm at friends house and i want to access my games library i can do so with psnow again without the download.  the downloads take so long that the idea of "taking my digital library to a friends house" is just unreasonable without planning out which titles we are going to play days in advance.  i just want something more flexible.

i'd pay good money for that convienence. 



kupomogli said:
sabastian said:
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.

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.


Not really.

As a PS+ subscriber of since 2012, I have access to as of now, over 100 games, across my current ps Vita/ ps3 & ps4. And thats on my current $50 per year.

And as Sony has said before, PS+ is bringing in huge profits for them. 15 million per month for 1 year will be a huge boost for them.

If Sony gets at least 1 million subs in its 1st month, thats  15 Million income per month. 

Imagine what their 1st year numbers would be.



You dont need more than a week to finish most games and $7 for an instantly accessible game is very fair.
I would gladly pay that for an old game i randomly fancied playing, i really don't see what all the fuss is about.

A monthly or yearly subscription model would have this service dead in a year or two in my opinion.



I think something that consumers aren't realizing about this service as well is that its not our hardware that's running the software, it's Sonys. While I think the price they want thus far is extreme (given the performance most people will receive), consumers are also wanting extreme price points.

Not sure how PS Now will do simply because businesses need money, and consumers are cheap skates.



Around the Network
sabastian said:
kupomogli said:
...

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.


Not really.

As a PS+ subscriber of since 2012, I have access to as of now, over 100 games, across my current ps Vita/ ps3 & ps4. And thats on my current $50 per year.

And as Sony has said before, PS+ is bringing in huge profits for them. 15 million per month for 1 year will be a huge boost for them.

If Sony gets at least 1 million subs in its 1st month, thats  15 Million income per month. 

Imagine what their 1st year numbers would be.

in that model you have to consider that day 1 psnow would only give you access to a library of 4 games, and probably indies at that.

ps+ had a tiny userbase in that model.  sony had to put multiplayer behind ps+ to get subsriptions up.  i think that path is a loosing path especially when ps+ is already drowning their current customers in more games than they can handle.  why would i ever pay another sub to get access to even more games?



sabastian said:
kupomogli said:

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.


Not really.

As a PS+ subscriber of since 2012, I have access to as of now, over 100 games, across my current ps Vita/ ps3 & ps4. And thats on my current $50 per year.

And as Sony has said before, PS+ is bringing in huge profits for them. 15 million per month for 1 year will be a huge boost for them.

If Sony gets at least 1 million subs in its 1st month, thats  15 Million income per month. 

Imagine what their 1st year numbers would be.

And how much would it cost to operate servers for those one million subscribers?  How much would the license fee's cost for all the games?  That 15 million dissapears pretty quckly, especially with the game license fee's...



Without actually knowing what the price is for Sony, this is just a wild guess, but this is the price point I consider fair for more than early adopter.

 

Tiers of access:

All-access: $60 per month.

PS2 Classics All-Access: $30 per month.

PSOne Classics All-Access: $10 per month.

Backwards Compatibility to already owned titles from PSN: Free with PS+

 

Renting PS3 Games:

One Game Rental for 48 hours: $10

Bundles:

3 games for 3 weeks: $20

4 games for a month, option to swap two: $30



Onlive, now Cloudlift, is planning to offer a similar service at $14.99 a month. Currrently $7.95 a month for the open beta. https://games.onlive.com/games#selectCloudlift
The catch, you have to buy the game first. It streams your Steam library games (50 for now).

$7 for a week per game is pretty good. The problem with a monthly subscription is account sharing and heavy users driving up the costs. Some limit should be in place. Maybe a prepaid model, buy game time per hour, or a tiered subscription model with different usage allowance, $50 a month for unlimited gaming.



kitler53 said:
sabastian said:
kupomogli said:
...

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.


Not really.

As a PS+ subscriber of since 2012, I have access to as of now, over 100 games, across my current ps Vita/ ps3 & ps4. And thats on my current $50 per year.

And as Sony has said before, PS+ is bringing in huge profits for them. 15 million per month for 1 year will be a huge boost for them.

If Sony gets at least 1 million subs in its 1st month, thats  15 Million income per month. 

Imagine what their 1st year numbers would be.

in that model you have to consider that day 1 psnow would only give you access to a library of 4 games, and probably indies at that.

ps+ had a tiny userbase in that model.  sony had to put multiplayer behind ps+ to get subsriptions up.  i think that path is a loosing path especially when ps+ is already drowning their current customers in more games than they can handle.  why would i ever pay another sub to get access to even more games?


The average Manhattan NY resident has Netflx + Apple TV subs....... Thats around $50 per month. And their happy with that. 

The average plus mamber sighning up as of today, has over 20 games to choose from. Thats an insane number of games. With a good mixture of old and new games. 

All im saying is, Sony themselves stated that ps+ is very profitable to them. It only makes sence to add a $$$ sub associated to Playstation Now also.