I think the whole thing should be structured around the amount of hours, with only one price for the full game:

Single game pricing:

$1 = 1 hours
$3 = 4 hours
$5 = 10 hours
$8 = 1 day
$15 = One week

Subscription (no time limit):

$25 = 1 month for 10 games.
$40 = 3 months for 20 games
$70 = 6 months for 40 games
$100 = 1 year for 50 games

PS+ subscription benefits:

5% off 1 months subscription
10% off 3 months subscription
15% off 6 months subscription
25% off 1 years subscription

DO IT SONY!

$100 a year!? Ahahahahahahaha.

So what would your subscription fee be for a year of playing every single game on PSNow? $75 if you're a PS+ member.

I would get rid of the hours and do days. Much easier to understand for people.

Costs are difficult, because many single player games you could in theory finish in about 8-10 hours, if the cost is too small the company lose out massively, if its too high, whats the point. It's really a difficult situation. I mean to rent a 2 hour film is like £3.49 or something in SD, HD is a couple quid more (which is why i generally don't rent films because if i think i will like it i will just buy it).

Your subscriptions numbers for 6 months and 1 year are pretty good. The other two are a bit too pricey, obviously you want people to choose the longer date options but you might scare away potential trial customers when they see 1 month is essentially 1/4 of the 1 year price.

I would probably scrap the single game pricing all together, the options are either too expensive and I don't know if you want to get a rental service somewhat mixed together with selling games, if you buy the game it should be a download, no longer a stream.

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around Playstation Now and its pricing model, and how it works in an ecosystem that already includes Playstation Plus.

But here's my take:

$5 for a week-long rental or $60 per year for unlimited access.

I would charge more per year access, 60 per year is awfully generous.

you are all out of ur mind... sony must make money and streaming is a costly thing.
100$ for a gaming flatrate?

You won't be playing every single game on PSNow. You just have access to them. But expecting someone to pay $100 a year on top of $50 a year for PS+ is a recipe for disaster. The game by game thing works because it creates the illusion that it's not that much, even if it is. Allowing the consumer to control the pacing that they pay is why PSNow works how it is currently.

If it was me, I'd have no PSNow and have PS+ include all the PS+ and PSNow benefits for $100 a year. And have free online.

Yes, I was trying to ballance it in such a way that makes it difficult to ignore the benefits of paying for more hours or subscribing for longer. I much prefer the hourly structure to the day structure though. You would have a timer set from the moment you begin playing that counts down to the time alocated to your payment and when that times expires, it gives you the option to 'continue?' Once you've hit 'continue' it takes you to the payment screen again. Once you've paid, you're straight back into the game.

I know what you mean about the hours system though ... there ARE games that could be played for $2 (4 hours) if you so wish, but nothing is ever going to suit EVERY game anyway.