PlayStation Now 'is a joke,' says Pachter. He's wrong.

  • 50 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by PSP107 (12090 posts) -

"There is no publisher that is going to license content that's less than two-years old because they would be concerned that they can't sell as many copies if they make it available for subscription or rental," he explained. "This has no prayer of working. None."

http://www.gamezone.com/news/2014/02/05/playstation-now-is-a-joke-says-pachter-he-s-wrong

#2 Edited by R3FURBISHED (10767 posts) -

It sounds like they are both saying the same thing - Pachter saying games need to be older than ~2 years and the blogger is saying the service is built more for PS1 and PS2 titles.

Same difference.

#3 Posted by PSP107 (12090 posts) -

@R3FURBISHED:

When PS4/Xone was announce with no BC, a lot of people ripped the idea of playing old games on new systems.

Then they get excited for PSNow. Bottom line is people are not consistence on their stances.

Is that fair say?

#4 Posted by charizard1605 (59704 posts) -

Of course he is wrong, Pachter is always wrong.

#5 Posted by Animal-Mother (27004 posts) -
@charizard1605 said:

Of course he is wrong, Pachter is always wrong.

Right and Wrong.

Pachter Is completely wrong on this issue.

On the other hand he makes everyone squirm because he's an analyst. He's paid to guess. So he can never truly be wrong.

#6 Edited by hoosier7 (3907 posts) -

PS+ has had titles that are around a year old on mutliple occasions so there's enough evidence that what Patcher says is nonsense.

#7 Edited by ghostwarrior786 (5808 posts) -

'no publisher that is going to license content that's less than two-years old' hahah yeah when did bioshock infinite release again? and is it available for ps+? yes it is haha

i would have been skeptical if ps+ didnt exist but if publishers are willing to put their games on ps+ why not playstation now

#8 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10767 posts) -

@PSP107 said:

@R3FURBISHED:

When PS4/Xone was announce with no BC, a lot of people ripped the idea of playing old games on new systems.

Then they get excited for PSNow. Bottom line is people are not consistence on their stances.

Is that fair say?

Yes and no. There are people who think they want backwards compatibility but won't utilize it, people who want the option and may or may not use it and people like me who think its a waste of time (BC).

#9 Edited by I_can_haz (6551 posts) -

Pachter is wrong 99.9% of the time.

#10 Posted by Bigboi500 (30423 posts) -

He's right for once. Nobody who buys a PS4 is doing so to play PS3 games, and people like myself who already own a shit ton of PS3 games will not be interested in the service--and then there's the small chance of the service being flawless enough to work properly.

#11 Edited by Heil68 (46164 posts) -

Same reason "Family Share" wouldn't of allowed 10 users playing a new game.

#13 Edited by Nonstop-Madness (9491 posts) -

Same thing could have been said about movies but just look at Netflix.

#14 Posted by XboxDone74 (2047 posts) -

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2014/02/05/pachter-says-playstation-now-is-a-joke-has-no-prayer-of-working/

Love how PlaystationLifeStyle owned his ass lol!

SDC

#15 Edited by DocSanchez (1787 posts) -

I thought PS Now was about old games anyway?

#16 Edited by treedoor (7648 posts) -

I'm concerned with what PS Now will offer in comparison to what I can already get.

With something like Netflix I get tons of popular content, cult classics, lots of documentaries and tv series, and foreign programs, and it's just a much more convenient way to access so much content for only $8 a month.

If you could get access to the entirety of the PS1, PS2, and PSP catalog (and perhaps the PS3/PS4/PSV catalog, but nogames anyways), and then perhaps more if Sony offers Japanese games for the Western markets, and this all comes for $8-$10 a month, then that'd be great.

I'm just reminded of OnLive though where you not only paid something like $15 a month for the service, but you paid for each individual game you played as well because streaming video games is expensive. It costs much, much more than it does to stream music, or movies. On top of that you got a pretty limited selection, and it was all worse quality than playing the game on your own hardware.

#17 Posted by PurpleMan5000 (7611 posts) -

This service seems like something that should be incorporated into PSN+ to me. All that other stuff on PSN+ doesn't quite make the service worth it to me, but retro gaming on-demand would be enough for me to purchase a PS4 if it didn't cost more than Netflix and I were able to play current games online at no cost in addition to PS Now.

#18 Edited by ButDuuude (512 posts) -

I was invited to the PlayStation Now beta and I'm still waiting for my code.

#19 Posted by Shielder7 (5155 posts) -

Uggggg I hate to defend pachter but it was taken slightly out of context, he was talking about how New games wouldn't go for it, but older ones would,. Not that it would fail altogether.

#20 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38218 posts) -

Pachter's always fucking wrong in his predictions and he knows it. He says stuff that makes people edgy and talkative

As he said himself "I'm really good at making sure I get paid"

#21 Posted by no-scope-AK47 (2865 posts) -

Why do people pay attention to this guy after all the things he gets wrong. He has no background in video games and does not even play games. Yet people seem to always quote this moron I just don't get it??

#22 Edited by handssss (1837 posts) -

Wasn't it already stated this was mostly going to be for letting people play old FIRST PARTY titles? Let's just forget he's already wrong because this is exactly how ps+ is working now when it comes to acquisition of games.

#23 Posted by FoxbatAlpha (8326 posts) -

Patcher just dealt a death blow to cows. PSN is over before it starts anyway.

#24 Posted by cainetao11 (18353 posts) -

I think his point is, if its about old games, how many are going to turn away from their new consoles to play this enough to make it profitable? Time will tell...

#25 Posted by Mr-Kutaragi (1969 posts) -

I guess that why Playstation Plus give recent game regularly.

#26 Edited by 22Toothpicks (11346 posts) -

Whether Pachter wants to admit it or not streaming is very likely the future of video games; it's not a matter of the Playstation Now service being a "joke" but perhaps Sony's timing is.

#27 Edited by 22Toothpicks (11346 posts) -

And to comment on Pachter himself I find that he is less an analyst and more a man throwing darts at a board.

#28 Posted by Chutebox (37883 posts) -

so what does he think about PSN +?

#29 Posted by PSP107 (12090 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

As he said himself "I'm really good at making sure I get paid"

lol

@handssss said:

Wasn't it already stated this was mostly going to be for letting people play old FIRST PARTY titles?

It will be pointless if it limited to just 1st party games.

@cainetao11 said:
how many are going to turn away from their new consoles to play this enough to make it profitable? Time will tell...

Short term the concept sounds cool, but I think long term people will be turned off as PS4 matures.

#30 Posted by Gargus (2147 posts) -

Patcher mostly just says anything that will get him attention. Much like is evidenced by your posting.

He will side with someone if the majority believes it also, he will decry something if there is something there that goes against the grain enough to get people riled up and so on. He has no real savvy or insight because only half of his predictions come true which is about as many as if I just guessed at things. Then when he is right he brings it up a lot, when he is wrong he never mentions it again.

He is a nobody with no real information, yet he gets attention for some reason.

#31 Edited by trugs26 (5747 posts) -

Everyone is misunderstanding him. He meant Playstation now is a joke. Not Playstation Now is a joke. As in, Playstation as a whole, currently, is a joke. In which case, he's right!

:P

#32 Edited by monson21502 (8104 posts) -

just another get rich quick scheme by sony. but since its sony is doing it everything is ok . i bet u mostly all the sonyfanboys will rebuy ps1 games they already bought on ps3 just to support the love of their lives lol

#33 Posted by millerlight89 (18635 posts) -

I'm not worried about the quality of games, I'm worried about how they will perform.

#34 Posted by Basinboy (11326 posts) -

Pachter's not wrong about the scenario he's presenting. But PSnow isn't yet positioning itself to supplant the local operations model games currently employ - it's meant to serve as a bridge for existing content from previous platforms, bypassing the need for reprogramming.

Uncertain in what ways PSnow was pitched to him.

#35 Posted by Sushiglutton (5390 posts) -

Same reason netflix is a joke. No company would allow their movies to be streamed unless they are a couple of years old, because that would hurt cinema/DVD sales.

Oh wait, Netflix is still kind of big....

#36 Edited by hippiesanta (9946 posts) -

Patcher can do greco wrestling with Major Nelson ..... battle of the ol farts

#37 Posted by thegamer00 (131 posts) -

Playstation Now is great. PS fans will be able to buy a Sony PC...uhh I mean Sony TV..i Mean Sony Vita....crapppppppp.

#38 Posted by leandrro (922 posts) -

@charizard1605 said:

Of course he is wrong, Pachter is always wrong.

origin / gaikai / PSc NOw is like netflix

its second line products

old or bad games are coming

#39 Edited by StormyJoe (5875 posts) -

@PSP107:

Pachter = LOL. This guy is never right on anything.

#40 Edited by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

His point is valid, no publisher in their right mind would put a game up for rental at the same time of release does not make economical sense. But I thought PS Now is being aimed at PS3 titles, well for now at least. I don't see any value in it personally but some people will like it for sure, people might use it to demo a game before they buy it?

#41 Edited by Riverwolf007 (24018 posts) -

is that the streaming service?

because if it is then yeah, it will probably suck ass.

onlive never worked right and was around for years and had tons of updates and patches and if onlive whose sole purpose was to make streaming gaming the thing of the future could not work then what hope does sony have at making it work as nothing more than an experimental side project?

the most likely outcome of this will be it will struggle to perform and then be abandoned by sony just like how they abandon almost everything else that does not work out as well as they want after a year or so.

the ugly truth of the matter is that all you have to do to predict how well streaming games will go over is to look at onlive.

#42 Edited by PSP107 (12090 posts) -

@Riverwolf007 said:

is that the streaming service?

because if it is then yeah, it will probably suck ass.

onlive never worked right and was around for years and had tons of updates and patches and if onlive whose sole purpose was to make streaming gaming the thing of the future could not work then what hope does sony have at making it work as nothing more than an experimental side project?

the most likely outcome of this will be it will struggle to perform and then be abandoned by sony just like how they abandon almost everything else that does not work out as well as they want after a year or so.

the ugly truth of the matter is that all you have to do to predict how well streaming games will go over is to look at onlive.

I won't be surprised if Now ends up being useless at some point.

#43 Edited by topgunmv (10309 posts) -

It's going to be just like netflix/amazon prime. Older titles mixed with newer ones that didn't sell especially well, plus a handful of popular blockbusters.

#44 Posted by WitIsWisdom (3829 posts) -

Pachter... a non gaming guessing machine. Put your money on the horse he says has the longest shot to win and get rich.

#45 Posted by cainetao11 (18353 posts) -

@PSP107: agreed. Why? When I can buy some of the games I want access to at anytime as downloads on my vita? I have ff7,8 on vita. Mgs on ps3. What do they want me to pay them to stream? I have a ps3, unless its like .99 cents to stream, for life! It makes no sense for on to not go to the bargain bin at Gamestop. I can gate kz2, 3 fot like 6.00 and I OWN them. What is the draw?

#46 Posted by Couth_ (10209 posts) -

@PSP107 said:

"There is no publisher that is going to license content that's less than two-years old" he explained.

He is absolutely correct here but I think our boy patch is a little confused on what Playstation Now is because it's for old content/games, not <2 year old games

#47 Edited by Nengo_Flow (10097 posts) -

Yes... thats why PS NOW is for backlog of previous consoles....

What? did he think you could play new release games day one?

PS NOW is for PS1, 2, 3. 2 years from now every PS3 game thats releasing right now would be 2+ years old.

Also PS NOW is mainly meant to be for old classic games and PS exclusives. I doubt you'll be seeing Battle Field, COD, Assassins Creed, and stuff like that.

#48 Edited by ominous_titan (768 posts) -

Psnow will be hot and this dude is clueless, Netflix is the perfect example why it will work. Nostalgia is a powerful thing. And from what I've read Psnow is for ps3 games as emulation for ps1+2 is rumored to be coming soon. Anytime ppl come out saying they think something new us awful generally becomes awesome, ppl fear change until it's proven and then everyone wants a piece of the action

#49 Edited by PSP107 (12090 posts) -

@cainetao11 said:

@PSP107: agreed. Why? When I can buy some of the games I want access to at anytime as downloads on my vita? I have ff7,8 on vita. Mgs on ps3. What do they want me to pay them to stream? I have a ps3, unless its like .99 cents to stream, for life! It makes no sense for on to not go to the bargain bin at Gamestop. I can gate kz2, 3 fot like 6.00 and I OWN them. What is the draw?

Yeah I'm curious on how they price this.

#50 Posted by speedfog (3329 posts) -

He's right.