If sony did what everyone would rather have them do, then how would the service be profitable? I think how they are doing it is ok. I don't see who would go for the 4hr option and i think that option is there just to push people to the next tier.

Honestly, if you want to play a game you haven't played before, and are ready to put a week into it, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't just pay $10 for 7 days or whatever. Every game can be finished in that time frame unless multiplayer, and if that is the case then just buy the game.

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.

It should be like Netflix, $8 a month and you can stream all their games. or add an extra $10 to PS+ and you get PS Now included in your subscription.

Yes, it's on Eurogamer. But I've read their article again (I saw it some months ago) and it's actually 8 PS3 per server, my bad. Each server is custom build with PS3 hardware and optimizations to work as a cloud gaming server. Take a look, it's a pretty good read.

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.

Say, $12 a month sounds more enticing than $144 a year. Sony should try it that way. They should rethink their entire pricing model.

As for OnLive, it's pretty damn smart the way they have re-focused their services.

Ars has a great suggestive article on the pricing scheme of PSNow that I thought was very brilliant and would help the service.

Link: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/06/sonys-playstation-now-pricing-is-insane-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be/

As for a subscription model. Sony could offer a limited rotating selection of games for a low monthly fee. Almost like a PS+ light service. Onlive has a plethora of games available on their subscription. Granted many are throw aways but there are some gems in there.

As it stands now the pricing is just too prohibitive to make it successful.

I think all catalogue should be available(you don't get games anyway, you get server's time, and whole catalogue available instantly really attracts) and people should pay just for the gaming hours(from 1hr - $1 to 100hr - $50).

Lol. One of the worst ideas I've heard so far.
Streaming is all about instant access and choice. Strictly limiting the customer like this is even more ridiculous than the original prices. Your idea would only benefit people who play A LOT.

$4 for 1 day
$7 for 3 days
$10 for 1 week
$20 for 15 days
$30 for a month
$120 sub for access to a limited (but quite large) amount of games, for a year.