Michael Patcher At It Again. Says PS Now Brand Is A Joke.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Edited by blackace (21410 posts) -

What is wrong with this guy? Michael Patcher is once again opening his mouth and making predictions before a service even goes live. He's now claiming that Sony won't have enough money to entice publishers to put their games on PS Now. Trying to figure out where he got the $30 price from. Does he think this is a monthly service fee like Netflix? I thought the $49.99 was a yearly fee, but I could be wrong as well. In any case, Patcher is a clueless analyst. We still don't know how many games will be available for PS Now or what the final pricing will be.

http://www.vg247.com/2014/02/10/ps-now-sony-cant-afford-to-pay-for-streamed-content-like-netflix-does/

"PlayStation Now was branded “a joke” by Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter last week, and it seems he’s at it again. He has now questioned Sony’s ability to pay publishers for content to fill out the cloud service in the same way Netflix does.

Now; as part of the Bonus Round cast, Pachter discussed Sony’s need for content on PS Now, adding to fears that publishers won’t want to limit their own profitability by offering their games on a subscription-based streaming service. He fears that studios and publishers will lose out on ‘per-sale’ income by entering into Sony’s unlimited streaming model.

Speaking on the webcast he said, “The math doesn’t make sense for the content owners. If the math doesn’t make sense for the content owners, it isn’t gonna happen,” and added, “So The lower the subscrition price, the less likely this thing will work. If it’s a thirty dollars subscription price, which the publishers will embrace, then no one’s gonna sign up.”

Comparing PS Now to the Netflix model, which includes original programming, Pachter continued, “I don’t think you could make it work. Netflix is the anomaly.The low price subscription plan with tons and tons of content… They did a bunch of really clever deals early on to make that happen, and then they got big enough that they can afford to pay.

“Sony’s not big enough to afford to pay that kind of dollars. They don’t have that much money.”"

#2 Posted by BigBoss255 (3539 posts) -

He clearly missed the main point of PS Now which is backwards compatibility. Sony won't even want to offer the latest games because that would undervalue PS4.

Amazing how someone who's paid for their opinion can be so ignorant.

#3 Posted by kuu2 (7963 posts) -

Saw this a couple days ago but didn't post because MSoft will have a similar service as well. Either way though I am not that interested in either service.

Also, Patcher is clueless.

#4 Posted by Riverwolf007 (24189 posts) -

it is a joke.

onlive was dedicated to streaming games, ran for years had dozens of tech updates and patches and still never worked for shyt and now sony is going to make it work as a side project?

get real.

#5 Posted by TrappedInABox91 (1026 posts) -

Who pays this moron for his BS opinions anyways?

#6 Edited by blackace (21410 posts) -

He's already killing it before it even begins. That's really my problem with his comments. Sony could use the majority of their exclusive titles and a few Japanese developers like Namco, Konami, Capcom, Atlus & From Software and still have a decent amount of games on the service. My only real concern is pricing and the latency. It's definitely something I wouldn't touch until a year after launch. Same thing I did with PSPlus.

#7 Posted by Heil68 (47201 posts) -

I may get it if the price is right. Will it thrive? I dont think so. Most people hang onto their old consoles if they want to play older games. Guess we'll see.

#9 Posted by treedoor (7648 posts) -

I'm assuming PS Now will work a lot like OnLive did.

Subscription fee + paying for individual titles.

Sony may entice subscribers by putting up F2P PS1 and PS2 titles (maybe), but as for current and upcoming games? I'd be willing to bet those will have to be paid for. Hopefully not the full $60, but I'd bet there will be some charge.

It costs nearly twice as much to stream HD quality games than it does HD video (because you have to upload info back to the server). I can't see any way that Sony makes a yearly subscription less than Netflix, Hulu, etc.

#10 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (9011 posts) -

Patcher does touch on a point that I forgot about. The streaming rights. I remember hearing that Netflix pays STARZ around $25 million a year to stream their content. This is just one company Netflix has to pay on top of all the other studios.

So, will it be worth it? Not in my book but I don't want to play last gen games that bad when I can still hook up my 360 and go play a game that I just bought for $25 and be good for a while.

#11 Edited by Riverwolf007 (24189 posts) -

@treedoor said:

I'm assuming PS Now will work a lot like OnLive did.

Subscription fee + paying for individual titles.

Sony may entice subscribers by putting up F2P PS1 and PS2 titles (maybe), but as for current and upcoming games? I'd be willing to bet those will have to be paid for. Hopefully not the full $60, but I'd bet there will be some charge.

It costs nearly twice as much to stream HD quality games than it does HD video (because you have to upload info back to the server). I can't see any way that Sony makes a yearly subscription less than Netflix, Hulu, etc.

it was a shame onlive never worked right because the price was amazing but the problem i ran into was no great price could even make up for games running like shyt and looking like ass.

people here shyt a brick if something is 720p so how can they possibly deal with the way streaming games run?

hell, back when i had onlive you were lucky if they looked 480p.

most of the time they looked 360i and the entire screen was covered in tiling.

#12 Edited by _Matt_ (9435 posts) -

Well that's pretty reassuring for PS Now.

If Pachter says it's shit, it's actually gonna be successful.

#13 Edited by freedomfreak (43536 posts) -

"Patcher"

#14 Edited by hoosier7 (3976 posts) -

This is old, we had a thread on it too.

#15 Edited by Shielder7 (5191 posts) -

I personally have no interest in PS now.

#16 Posted by Sushiglutton (5534 posts) -

@BigBoss255 said:

He clearly missed the main point of PS Now which is backwards compatibility.

Pretty much. He is such an embarrassment to himself :|.

#17 Edited by RR360DD (13046 posts) -

He has a point though. Playstation Now just has no appeal.

Its not a substitute to backwards compatibility. So they're effectively creating a service trying to sell old PS1/2/3 games on the PS4. Seems pretty stupid to me when most people will be buying the PS4 for PS4 games.

And money aside, Netflix was a success because it worked. Theres a big difference between streaming video, and streaming a game.

#18 Edited by Draign (893 posts) -

Playstation Now SHOULD die. I dont hate Sony but I hate the idea of games being served to consumers. Sony is acting like they support gamestop and physical formats because they have to. PS Now is just the beginning.