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

Forums - Gaming - "Sony’s PlayStation Now Service Feels Like Highway Robbery"

Tagged games:

DeadBigfoot21 on 01 August 2014
TheBlackNaruto said:
DeadBigfoot21 said:
BillyBong said:

what is the issue really?  Do you realize that PSNOW will benefit those that don't own/will never own a ps3, but would love to play the games on a compatible device?  Have you also ever rented anything ever?  the pricing is fine other than the $3 for 4hrs.. one can assume, it will only get better once out of beta.  a subscription im not sure will truly work for a service like this, considering the amount of games from different publishers this service is offering.

So sure.. go walking into a gamestop or online at amazon and buy a game cheaper than you can rent it for on a system you do not have.. oh wait.. how would you play it?  ding ding ding.. that's what this service offers.. access to a whole world of the playstation catalog without having to actually buy a console.  for ps4 owners that never owned a ps3.. same thing.  access to a catalog of games you would of never got to experience.

Nope, Sony just found a way to make more money. They don't want you to go spend your money on GameStop so they created this service which is about the same amount of money as buying the game used. Buying used games doesn't help the publisher so Sony wants a cut from that.

Isn't that what most companies do? Find ways to make money? And also it seems you are missing the point for current PS3 owners this isn't really that big of a deal because as you said you can go buy the game cheaper. But what is someone doesn't want to buy the game but still wants to play it? Wouldn't this benefit them? Or what about the people that only have a PS4 and no PS3 like I mentioned in my other post wouldn't this benefit them? It's like you are just completely ignoring those two things...

Ok and you are leaving out the people with low internet speed (below 5Mbps) streaming games is the last thing they want to do as it can cause major lag issues. I would never choose digital over physical but I would if prices were much cheaper. In this case it really isn't and on top of that its online only. You are not understanding my point of view here. If I can get the same game on PS now and in store or online (amazon) I would go for the physical copy since I don't have to be always connected. Internet is not 100% reliable so when its down then I can't play the game I played for. If there is a subscription based deal like I stated already then this would make PS now a much better deal. 



Around the Network
BMaker11 on 01 August 2014
DeadBigfoot21 said:

Ok and you are leaving out the people with low internet speed (below 5Mbps) streaming games is the last thing they want to do as it can cause major lag issues. I would never choose digital over physical but I would if prices were much cheaper. In this case it really isn't and on top of that its online only. You are not understanding my point of view here. If I can get the same game on PS now and in store or online (amazon) I would go for the physical copy since I don't have to be always connected. Internet is not 100% reliable so when its down then I can't play the game I played for. If there is a subscription based deal like I stated already then this would make PS now a much better deal. 

I really cannot believe that you still aren't understanding that PSNow is targeted at people who don't have the hardware. PS Vita, PS4, Sony TVs, Vita TV, Sony Tablets.....you can't choose the physical disc when you don't have the hardware to play it on. That's the point of it. If you have a PS3, DUH PS Now isn't a wise investment.

And also, actually, you have to do a connection test when you go into to PSNow. If you're connection isn't good enough, it won't let you stream. Maybe kinda dickish for people who don't have good internet...but that is taxing on their servers (and you're the people screwing up online games anyway, lagging up connections lol)

But, would I be wrong to assume that if you have Sony's overpriced Smart TVs, a $200 Vita, $100 PS TV, $400 PS4, etc....you know, expensive devices that are online heavy, you'd have a decent enough internet connection to actually use them? I mean, you obviously have the means to afford those items. Presumptiously of me, because they could be gifts or items that were saved for, but as a person that got a PS4 because I wanted one so I bought it....I knew to have an internet connection capable of making my experience enjoyable with it.



Neodegenerate on 01 August 2014
kowenicki said:

There is no reason for this model other than profiteering.


Or they had people actually do market research and discovered that people were more adverse to paying two subscription fees (PS+ and PSNow) than they were to doing a pick and choose as you go service.

Or (and here is the big one) they are currently looking at subscription options and haven't actually finalized any of their pricing models.



Fusioncode on 01 August 2014

You know I looked through the games on PS Now and most of the prices aren't that bad. Like $6 to rent for a week is a pretty decent deal in my opinion. This just seems like an overreaction.



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Fusioncode on 01 August 2014
gergroy said:
how sony monetized playstation now was always their biggest barrier to overcome. They obviously still haven't figured it out. (here is a hint Sony, subscription model!)

Do you really think Sony hasn't considered doing a subscription model? It's not exactly easy to implement considering how many publishers are involved. 



Sigs are dumb. And so are you!

Around the Network
DeadBigfoot21 on 01 August 2014
BMaker11 said:
DeadBigfoot21 said:

Ok and you are leaving out the people with low internet speed (below 5Mbps) streaming games is the last thing they want to do as it can cause major lag issues. I would never choose digital over physical but I would if prices were much cheaper. In this case it really isn't and on top of that its online only. You are not understanding my point of view here. If I can get the same game on PS now and in store or online (amazon) I would go for the physical copy since I don't have to be always connected. Internet is not 100% reliable so when its down then I can't play the game I played for. If there is a subscription based deal like I stated already then this would make PS now a much better deal. 

I really cannot believe that you still aren't understanding that PSNow is targeted at people who don't have the hardware. PS Vita, PS4, Sony TVs, Vita TV, Sony Tablets.....you can't choose the physical disc when you don't have the hardware to play it on. That's the point of it. If you have a PS3, DUH PS Now isn't a wise investment.

And also, actually, you have to do a connection test when you go into to PSNow. If you're connection isn't good enough, it won't let you stream. Maybe kinda dickish for people who don't have good internet...but that is taxing on their servers (and you're the people screwing up online games anyway, lagging up connections lol)

But, would I be wrong to assume that if you have Sony's overpriced Smart TVs, a $200 Vita, $100 PS TV, $400 PS4, etc....you know, expensive devices that are online heavy, you'd have a decent enough internet connection to actually use them? I mean, you obviously have the means to afford those items. Presumptiously of me, because they could be gifts or items that were saved for, but as a person that got a PS4 because I wanted one so I bought it....I knew to have an internet connection capable of making my experience enjoyable with it.

No thanks! I rather go out and buy a ps3 which are much cheaper now and will only continue to get cheaper from now on. Or if I wanted to buy one dirt cheap then I would go out and buy one used. Those are found everywhere and I can do the exact same thing....buy these games used for cheaper and not deal with this online only deal = problem solved!

Internet speeds will not vary based on how much money you have. Its all on what is available in your area. Some areas have weak internet speeds and if you live in one of these areas then this service will not work for you.


Augen on 01 August 2014

The thing to me is not adjusting rental prices based on demand. Sure a newer game could command $8 for a week, but some mid level title from 2007? Why not charge $3 for a week? Might win a new fan, or very least get revenue never would have other wise.



gergroy on 01 August 2014
Fusioncode said:
gergroy said:
how sony monetized playstation now was always their biggest barrier to overcome. They obviously still haven't figured it out. (here is a hint Sony, subscription model!)

Do you really think Sony hasn't considered doing a subscription model? It's not exactly easy to implement considering how many publishers are involved. 

Well, If I were Sony, I would have figured it out before bringing it to the market.  All they are doing is turning people off from the service as it is.  It would have been better for them to hold off and get all their ducks in a row before prematurely launching to a negative reaction like it is getting now.  Much like the x1 reveal...



Neodegenerate on 01 August 2014
gergroy said:
Fusioncode said:
gergroy said:
how sony monetized playstation now was always their biggest barrier to overcome. They obviously still haven't figured it out. (here is a hint Sony, subscription model!)

Do you really think Sony hasn't considered doing a subscription model? It's not exactly easy to implement considering how many publishers are involved. 

Well, If I were Sony, I would have figured it out before bringing it to the market.  All they are doing is turning people off from the service as it is.  It would have been better for them to hold off and get all their ducks in a row before prematurely launching to a negative reaction like it is getting now.  Much like the x1 reveal...

They haven't launched.  It is in BETA



TheBlackNaruto on 01 August 2014
DeadBigfoot21 said:
TheBlackNaruto said:

Isn't that what most companies do? Find ways to make money? And also it seems you are missing the point for current PS3 owners this isn't really that big of a deal because as you said you can go buy the game cheaper. But what is someone doesn't want to buy the game but still wants to play it? Wouldn't this benefit them? Or what about the people that only have a PS4 and no PS3 like I mentioned in my other post wouldn't this benefit them? It's like you are just completely ignoring those two things...

Ok and you are leaving out the people with low internet speed (below 5Mbps) streaming games is the last thing they want to do as it can cause major lag issues. I would never choose digital over physical but I would if prices were much cheaper. In this case it really isn't and on top of that its online only. You are not understanding my point of view here. If I can get the same game on PS now and in store or online (amazon) I would go for the physical copy since I don't have to be always connected. Internet is not 100% reliable so when its down then I can't play the game I played for. If there is a subscription based deal like I stated already then this would make PS now a much better deal. 

But I am not leaving them out at all. seeing as if they have that kind of interent them steaming gaming as you said would be the last thing they would want to do. It's not like Sony can go and fix their interent and give them faster speeds. So if they are unable to use streaming due to their internet them as you already stated they have other options. Like I said PS Now IS NOT for everyone including me because it is not something I would choose at this point in time. I also prefer physical media but this is a good OPTION for other people. The way you were saying things it was as if this was being forced on everyone when it isn't. And I also agree if it was subscription based it would be a much better deal without a doubt.



The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence...

PSN: StlUzumaki23