Like this you mean?

The target audience for PSNow is not the hardcore market.  They are simply using us to determine the pricing structure through their beta programs before they roll it out to the target: casual gamers and people who don't currently own consoles.  Those people aren't experiencing any of these woes as they don't actually go to gaming websites or care about what happened in beta.  They will care when they see the advertising and the actual pricing.  Any damage this is causing is going to be minimal at best in regards to their target audience.

yeah, because nobody but the hardcore people heard about the terrible x1 reveal because they don't visit gaming websites?  ...or not.  

They could have kept it as a closed beta if they weren't sure about pricing, but they decided to open it up to everybody.  That means that they don't plan to make too many changes to the the service, not matter what they say.  They could and probably will add a subscription model in the future because I don't think there will be much money coming in with this pricing structure.  

Much like playstation home, they are just launching it to the public and using the term "beta" to hide behind its shortcomings.  It is the exact same tactic.  My point is they should have just waited until they had the right approach before they opened it up to everybody.  Because just like playstation home, I think playstation now is going to get so much bad press that it is going to be sunk before it can take off.  

Lol owned! 

Anyways I thought onLive was dead?

Using a failed venture to make your point is actually counter-productive.  Onlive proves why that model potentially wouldn't work, not the other way around.

That's on you if you decide to go out and just get a PS3 and get the games on the cheap. PSNow isn't targeted for you then. And you're right, internet speeds don't vary based on how much money you have. I kinda assumed that if you had all the stuff, you probably have good internet. Didn't take into consideration location.

But if you're in a situation like that....you're just kinda SOL aren't you? No need to single out PSNow. You wouldn't be doing any kind of streaming, if you have crappy internet. From Sept 2012 - July 2013, I was in an apartment (in a major city mind you) but for some real AT&T U-Verse was "not a serviceable area"...even though my buddy who lived in the same neighborhood just a on the other side of the neighborhood had it. All we could get was "AT&T High Speed DSL" topping out at 768Kbps (yea...you read that right). I didn't curse Hulu and Netflix and worry about whether the service was good, and how it affected people in my situation. And I definitely didn't keep paying for it. I just cancelled Hulu until I moved to a place where I could get better internet. PSNow is the same way.

Man what a moronic argument, it's a free market..no one is FORCED to buy anything it's how it works, if it's too costly the market will force sony to adjust. Grasp at straws much?

I dont see this as trampling on consumer rights, not at all. Neither was MS.  They are options, nobody is forced to take them.  That kind of talk is silly.

No, I am merely commenting on the value aspect.  I like the idea of a streaming service.  I want it to come soon and for retail discs to vanish, hence I liked the original ONE model and obvious direction.

But streaming should be a sub model.

Ps. Onlive still exists.

why cant you take a hint from the mods?

So sony only has the resource, power and tech of Onlive?  Gotcha.

I dont realise, thanks for filling me in.  In that case...you are right, they best stick to an unattractive pricing strructure to limit take up.