PlayStation Now Prices Are Currently Insane

#51 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43157 posts) -

Those are some absurd prices. :/

#52 Edited by OhSnapitz (18498 posts) -
@Opus_Rea-333 said:

It is mind trick to make $3-19$ seems cheaper pretty genious Sony.

Not genius.. just typical to consumer price gouging. Retailers do this all the time. Hike a price up beyond what would be considered manageable.. then lower the price (just a bit) to make it seem like they're catering to the consumer.

EDIT: oh and those mentioning a subscription? Shouldn't this already be part of PSN+? They already offer "rentals" of games anyway.. And it's not like people are paying for dedicated servers.

#53 Posted by Spitfire-Six (587 posts) -

Beta's are to stress test servers, and game mechanics not to price check.

#54 Posted by drummerdave9099 (791 posts) -

They don't want us to buy used games. Yet their prices make me want to buy used games.

#55 Posted by Heil68 (46127 posts) -

I'm guessing those aren't final pricing, if they are they will see no interest in the rental service.

#56 Posted by bobbetybob (19296 posts) -
@spitfire-six said:

Beta's are to stress test servers, and game mechanics not to price check.

Is that meant to be in Sony's defence? If so: explain why they even bothered to put prices in there then?

These are a joke really, they've got a captive audience and they could throw it all away with stupid pricing.

#57 Edited by clr84651 (5527 posts) -

@spitfire-six said:

Beta's are to stress test servers, and game mechanics not to price check.

Then why did I get an E-mail from Sony saying they were going to start doing test prices on the Beta & would be doing a followup to see what beta testers thought?

#58 Posted by yokofox33 (30133 posts) -

I'd prefer a subscription service, but whatever. Those prices are redonkulous, but I'm probably not going to subscribe or rent the games anyway. Still, hope they change the prices for the people who are actually interested in it.

#59 Posted by Gue1 (10689 posts) -

oh shit, I thought the beta was still free but if you have to pay now then... Wow. 0____0

#60 Edited by Kaze_no_Mirai (11540 posts) -
@Gue1 said:

oh shit, I thought the beta was still free but if you have to pay now then... Wow. 0____0

Yeah, the prices went up the day the images were shown and everyone here was denying their validity. I haven't rented anything since, no way I'm paying to beta test something, especially at those prices.

#61 Posted by intotheminx (768 posts) -

If that's real...then those are horrible prices lol.

#62 Posted by bbkkristian (14967 posts) -

@starwolf474: hey if it fails, we'll get emulators back! And we'llactually own the games instead of renting them!

Downloading >>>>> streaming.

#63 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10080 posts) -

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

#64 Edited by jsolidus (165 posts) -

not sure if this is a joke? Sony needs to get its head out if its ass with this. Why would anyone rent a game for those prices when you could buy it for cheap? I hope they get enough feedback to change this because its a fail in the making.

#65 Posted by PyratRum (561 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

I remember that too and I would be totally OK with that.

Otherwise, Sony can choke on it.

#66 Edited by SolidTy (45110 posts) -

This is like the 5th thread on this topic and exact link to Kotaku. It's unfortunately another dupe thread.

@Salt_The_Fries said:

What was the deal with SolidTy making such a huge effort to say otherwise whereas both numerous media outlets and other SW users also confirmed the pricing you mentioned in the OP?

Firstly, you aren't paying attention to all the details. The kotaku article link provided by the TC is the EXACT same OLD link from various other threads popping up in SW. Look at the date of the link, it's the same words and article from Friday. Nothing has changed on that front. What you are seeing is various threads in SW posting the same link over and over and creating dupe threads based on this single Kotaku article posted on Friday. It's new to the TC so they figure it's new to SW, but it's not. Now that I've explained that bit of info, keep that in mind when yet another new thread pops up tomorrow and the day after you'll check the link and see if it's this same tired Kotaku link. That all said, I do have some new information.

I explained my perspective as I am in the BETA (Two BETAs, one for PS4 and one for PS3) so there is no sense in once again answering that question. If you read my response then, you'll know what I was talking about. From my perspective on my BETAs, it was all free, so the information seemed fabricated, but if you recall, I said it's possible there was more than one BETA we were dealing with. Remember, this is all new and I was offering insider information that I had at the time. As you are aware things change over time and it's been four days. It turns out that's the case, some people are in an open BETA and got some different details like these high prices. After I responded in that thread, I did get an email from Sony clarifying more details. It was breaking news, so quick in fact that my BETA was under the old FREE mode and Sony changed that shortly thereafter my post. Remember too, that I'm not a renter and I've always maintained that during this period it was nice to play free games, but I'm a collector so ultimately buying games is my preference to renting. I just merely offered information I had at that time.

I am in the NOW BETA for both PS4 and PS3 and I'm an original Tester. There is also others that got in the NOW BETA due to winning at E3 some sort of invite. Due to an NDA I agreed with Sony, I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post this, but the email is harmless so what the heck.I will cut out links and other information out of the email just in case. I can't post other details due to the NDA, but this is an email I got from Sony (after I responded in one of many PS NOW threads using Kotaku's link).

The email reveals:

  1. This is all new and happening now with Beta testers. At the time of my writing it wasn't in effect (on my end at least, but clearly it started for others).
  2. It's a preliminary pricing test.
  3. The NOW BETA is moving to an OPEN, PUBLIC BETA.
  4. These prices are decided on by participating developers/publishers.
  5. The Beta Testers feedback during this phase of the private Beta is extremely critical in determining future prices.

---

Hi Private Beta Testers,

We just wanted to give you all a quick update on the next phases of PlayStation Now. As you may have heard, at our E3 Press Conference we announced that PlayStation Now will be moving into an Open Beta, first starting on PS4 system on July 31, 2014. We are excited to get PlayStation Now in the hands of all PS4 users - so there is a lot of excitement for July 31 to come around...[content removed due to NDA]

Now it's time for Private Beta news. You will have seen a title rotation which includes a fresh set of games as well as the introduction of a preliminary pricing test...[content removed]

Inside this first test, you will find a variety of rental prices and rental periods to choose from. These prices are ultimately decided on by the participating developers and publishers. Your feedback during this next phase of the Private Beta is extremely important, as we will be monitoring it closely.

PS. If you have a rental period in progress for a game that just got rotated out: don't worry! You will still be able to access the rental...[content removed](These are FREE in my games section)

Please give us your feedback in these Private Beta Forums or email...[content removed]

---

Here's a PARTIAL picture of the email I just recently received from Sony PS NOW Team:

#67 Posted by inb4uall (5865 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

#68 Posted by santoron (7833 posts) -

@inb4uall said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

But, that'd actually be slightly less than Netflix streaming.

Not that I believe it. Publisher's would never agree to that rate. Trolls around here seem to think Sony gets to set these prices, but they've already said publishers and/or devs have final say.

#69 Edited by SolidTy (45110 posts) -

@inb4uall said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

Let me say right now I think these prices are atrocious, but I also dislike renting at all as a collector. I never have favored renting. If I like a game, I want to own it, but as a kid I took rentals because it's all my parents wanted to spend. A weekend here or there with a game. Regarding PS+, I was invited to participate in a BETA for FREE rentals, so I graciously accepted only because the price was right. I even picked up and completed a few games for free.

However, as far as Netflix's prices, if they charge $8 ($7.99 a month, right for SD only streaming) a month to stream and you multiply that $8 times twelve months, Netflix's prices work out to $96 a year. My point is when that poster shot out the idea of $90 a year, that's actually under Netflix's $8 a month/$96 a year plan. Double Netflix's prices would be $192 a year. I'm not justifying anything, but I noticed the math above in the quote chain and figured I would answer that. I have no idea what Sony's pricing is going to be and I answered above in another post with some inside information for SW on that front.

I should also point out it's $8.99 for Netflix HD streaming for two screens and $11.99 a month for 4 HD screens a month. That's the upcoming changes that took place for May this year, but I believe older members get their old rates for a fixed time at $7.99 a month, but that expires a year or two from now. At max, with only streaming ($12 a month x 12 months) it's $144 a year for HD Netflix streaming to four screens. The prices add up when you think about it.

#70 Posted by inb4uall (5865 posts) -

@santoron said:

@inb4uall said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

But, that'd actually be slightly less than Netflix streaming.

Not that I believe it. Publisher's would never agree to that rate. Trolls around here seem to think Sony gets to set these prices, but they've already said publishers and/or devs have final say.

Then ideally Sony has to strong arm them. Say fuck you to the people who aren't on board. Create some content only availbe through a sub to PSnow. Then let the devs come crawling back.

But that would make PS now a dominant service. I actually want to own my games. Thankfully I don't think the gaming industry will fall to streaming services as easily as the television did to you tube and netflicks.

#71 Posted by inb4uall (5865 posts) -

@SolidTy said:

@inb4uall said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

Let me say right now I think these prices are atrocious, but I also dislike renting at all as a collector. I never have favored renting. If I like a game, I want to own it, but as a kid I took rentals because it's all my parents wanted to spend. A weekend here or there with a game. Regarding PS+, I was invited to participate in a BETA for FREE rentals, so I graciously accepted only because the price was right. I even picked up and completed a few games for free.

However, as far as Netflix's prices, if they charge $8 ($7.99 a month, right for SD only streaming) a month to stream and you multiply that $8 times twelve months, Netflix's prices work out to $96 a year. Double Netflix's prices would be $192 a year. I should also point out it's $8.99 for Netflix HD streaming for two screens and $11.99 a month for 4 HD screens a month. At max, with only streaming ($12 a month x 12 months) it's $144 a year for HD Netflix streaming to four screens. The prices add up when you think about it.

Ahh I guess I thought it was less than that. I just leech off my families netflick sub. lol

#72 Edited by SolidTy (45110 posts) -
@inb4uall said:

@SolidTy said:

@inb4uall said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

Yeah that's dumb. I was expecting maybe double netflick's price since movies and show cost less than games. But $90? Fuck that.

Let me say right now I think these prices are atrocious, but I also dislike renting at all as a collector. I never have favored renting. If I like a game, I want to own it, but as a kid I took rentals because it's all my parents wanted to spend. A weekend here or there with a game. Regarding PS+, I was invited to participate in a BETA for FREE rentals, so I graciously accepted only because the price was right. I even picked up and completed a few games for free.

However, as far as Netflix's prices, if they charge $8 ($7.99 a month, right for SD only streaming) a month to stream and you multiply that $8 times twelve months, Netflix's prices work out to $96 a year. My point is when that poster shot out the idea of $90 a year, that's actually under Netflix's $8 a month/$96 a year plan. Double Netflix's prices would be $192 a year. I'm not justifying anything, but I noticed the math above in the quote chain and figured I would answer that. I have no idea what Sony's pricing is going to be and I answered above in another post with some inside information for SW on that front.

I should also point out it's $8.99 for Netflix HD streaming for two screens and $11.99 a month for 4 HD screens a month. That's the upcoming changes that took place for May this year, but I believe older members get their old rates for a fixed time at $7.99 a month, but that expires a year or two from now. At max, with only streaming ($12 a month x 12 months) it's $144 a year for HD Netflix streaming to four screens. The prices add up when you think about it.

Ahh I guess I thought it was less than that. I just leech off my families netflick sub. lol


Haha! That's the way to do it, lol.

#73 Posted by tymeservesfate (2184 posts) -

this Beta is nothing but a quick cash grab by Sony. no one should have to pay for anything in a beta. especially not at these prices.

CALLED IT

#74 Posted by santoron (7833 posts) -

@inb4uall said:

@santoron said:

But, that'd actually be slightly less than Netflix streaming.

Not that I believe it. Publisher's would never agree to that rate. Trolls around here seem to think Sony gets to set these prices, but they've already said publishers and/or devs have final say.

Then ideally Sony has to strong arm them. Say fuck you to the people who aren't on board. Create some content only availbe through a sub to PSnow. Then let the devs come crawling back.

But that would make PS now a dominant service. I actually want to own my games. Thankfully I don't think the gaming industry will fall to streaming services as easily as the television did to you tube and netflicks.

Yeah, I don't think we have much to fear about streaming taking over. Even Sony seems intent on keeping this limited in scope so as to not intrude on their "traditional" gaming business.

If I were to guess, Sony might launch a subscription service for Sony published titles at an attractive rate and hope that if it takes off other publishers will become willing to sign on. Who knows though? It's hard to get all that excited about a laggy - even slightly laggy - service for legacy titles. If I were to use the service at all I think It'd be for the occasional hard to find title that I've missed and still worked well with the lag. I can't see using it enough to pay a monthly fee at almost any price.

#75 Posted by Jynxzor (9312 posts) -

I had imagined the initial idea was like a Netflix for games, and then to see the reality I'm a tad dissapointed.

This is another one of those things that will just relegated to the side and used in very rare situations I'm going to guess. But christ what do I know? Some of the most useless systems sometimes become massive hits...It's obviously a wait and see situation at the moment. But those prices...I wonder if those will persist into the full rollout.

#76 Posted by AM-Gamer (4432 posts) -

The fact is Sony has simply done a better job then Nintendo and MS overall but I will admit when the company drops the ball. Right now PlayStation now is a fucking joke. It's in beta and they said prices will change. I think it's important people who are testing it right now let them know that's unacceptable.

#77 Posted by Liquid_ (2885 posts) -

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

#78 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10080 posts) -

@pyratrum said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

I remember that too and I would be totally OK with that.

Otherwise, Sony can choke on it.

you would be ok with $90 a year? why? that overpriced man.

Not only that $90 to get acces to games I dont care for and games I already own, then I also have to pay $50 a year for PSN+

Thats $140

PS NOW doesnt interest me, and Im not taking account whatever prices it may have. I really dont see me getting or even ever needing to want to rent an old PS3 game (especially when I could just buy it for really cheap), there isnt anything on the PS2 side of games I care for especial now that most of the note worthy PS2 games have already had HD releases, and fuck shitty PS1 games.

So in short.... PS NOW offers nothing to me.

#79 Edited by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@Liquid_ said:

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

umm.. MS DID cater to their fans when they complained, remember?

#80 Edited by lostrib (40000 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

I remember that too and I would be totally OK with that.

Otherwise, Sony can choke on it.

you would be ok with $90 a year? why? that overpriced man.

Not only that $90 to get acces to games I dont care for and games I already own, then I also have to pay $50 a year for PSN+

Thats $140

PS NOW doesnt interest me, and Im not taking account whatever prices it may have. I really dont see me getting or even ever needing to want to rent an old PS3 game (especially when I could just buy it for really cheap), there isnt anything on the PS2 side of games I care for especial now that most of the note worthy PS2 games have already had HD releases, and fuck shitty PS1 games.

So in short.... PS NOW offers nothing to me.

What if they made it $90 for PS+ with PSNow

#81 Posted by Spitfire-Six (587 posts) -

@clr84651: cause they are retarded? i dunno seems like the purpose of beta test has been lost. Gamers use them as demo's companies use the to test prices?

#82 Edited by Liquid_ (2885 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

@Liquid_ said:

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

umm.. MS DID cater to their fans when they complained, remember?

last I checked X1 is in last below Wii-U

#83 Posted by Nengo_Flow (10080 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

I remember that too and I would be totally OK with that.

Otherwise, Sony can choke on it.

you would be ok with $90 a year? why? that overpriced man.

Not only that $90 to get acces to games I dont care for and games I already own, then I also have to pay $50 a year for PSN+

Thats $140

PS NOW doesnt interest me, and Im not taking account whatever prices it may have. I really dont see me getting or even ever needing to want to rent an old PS3 game (especially when I could just buy it for really cheap), there isnt anything on the PS2 side of games I care for especial now that most of the note worthy PS2 games have already had HD releases, and fuck shitty PS1 games.

So in short.... PS NOW offers nothing to me.

What if they made it $90 for PS+ with PSNow

that would be great deal wise, just not a deal i'll care for.

and also very VERY unlikely that PS NOW would be anything under $60 for a year subscription (even at $60 it seems really cheap for the type of service it is).

#84 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

@Liquid_ said:

@Sword-Demon said:

@Liquid_ said:

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

umm.. MS DID cater to their fans when they complained, remember?

last I checked X1 is in last below Wii-U

And how is that relevant to the conversation?

#85 Posted by inb4uall (5865 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@kuu2 said:

The milkage continues.

Earn your name Sony Fan.

It's things like this that will make me abandon console gaming and strictly buy PC titles. Anyone that buys into this sham is a fool.

Is PSN now mandatory.?

No.?

Ok then...carry on...

Worse than MS it could not be at least games cost money you can't get quacamele free,you people had been paying for Netflix and justifying it which has been free every freaking where so was online play for the las 11 years which still is free on PC,PS Vita,PS3,DS,wii,wii u,cell phones and you still defend that crap.

What you don't like don't support it,like i say if my PSN+ subscription runs out and sony has nothing good i would drop it,paying for online is a scam no matter who does it,and this service look just as bad.

da faq did I just read?

#86 Edited by RR360DD (12303 posts) -

Oh wow, it seems cows will go to ANY lengths to defend this garbage.

Seriously, recognise when Sony are being stupid and call them out on it. Stop bending over

#87 Posted by PyratRum (561 posts) -

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

@Nengo_Flow said:

@pyratrum said:

Should just be a subscription service. Paying for individual games is stupid.

they did say the were gonna have that option, i think i remember rumors way back saying it would be like $90 a year tho

I remember that too and I would be totally OK with that.

Otherwise, Sony can choke on it.

you would be ok with $90 a year? why? that overpriced man.

Not only that $90 to get acces to games I dont care for and games I already own, then I also have to pay $50 a year for PSN+

Thats $140

PS NOW doesnt interest me, and Im not taking account whatever prices it may have. I really dont see me getting or even ever needing to want to rent an old PS3 game (especially when I could just buy it for really cheap), there isnt anything on the PS2 side of games I care for especial now that most of the note worthy PS2 games have already had HD releases, and fuck shitty PS1 games.

So in short.... PS NOW offers nothing to me.

It may not offer value to you but it certainly does to me. Paying a fixed monthly (or even yearly) rate to have access to a bunch of PS3 and PS2 would be great. I go back to play a lot of older games and this would alleviate the need to have extra consoles sitting around.

#88 Posted by cainetao11 (18321 posts) -

@Liquid_ said:

@Sword-Demon said:

@Liquid_ said:

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

umm.. MS DID cater to their fans when they complained, remember?

last I checked X1 is in last below Wii-U

What does that have to do with catering to people's complaints?

#89 Posted by CanYouDiglt (7582 posts) -

@tormentos said:

@mems_1224 said:

They don't call them cows for nothing. Farmer Sony loves milking them.

How good it was those $60 for netflix on xbox 360..lol

MOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

But you do not need Gold for Netflix now. So are you just trying to point out Microsoft is getting better and Sony is getting worse? You are comparing something that Microsoft already changed to something Sony is just now releasing.

#90 Posted by GamersJustGame (322 posts) -

I have a question.

Are the reasons these rental princes so ridiculous due to the upkeep of gaikai? Surely it's not that princy to keep the servers going?

#91 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (25989 posts) -

Sony must be hurting for cash to even think these prices were acceptable.

#92 Posted by Draign (836 posts) -

Thank you Sony. May I have more?

#93 Posted by always_explicit (3020 posts) -

This is a ploy.....the prices are high so people will give them feedback saying "lower the price".

They will lower the price to something thats still somewhat overpriced.

Cows will bend over and thank them for "listening" whilst paying out of their asses and the PS4 hype train will continue to ride along the "all hype no substance" railways line....next stop....milkage International.

#94 Posted by IamAdorable (402 posts) -

This service is just all kinds of bad.

#95 Posted by clr84651 (5527 posts) -

@spitfire-six said:

@clr84651: cause they are retarded? i dunno seems like the purpose of beta test has been lost. Gamers use them as demo's companies use the to test prices?

They're used to improve gaming, network functionality/speed, test pricing, & whatever else they need to do.

#96 Posted by jsmoke03 (13029 posts) -

omg...this is gonna flop.

#97 Edited by gago-gago (9678 posts) -

The sad and funny part is that Sony fans will bend over and take it and get milk willingly wanting more from Sony then they will spin PS Now like it was the best service.

#98 Posted by magicalclick (23242 posts) -

Now the industry not only sell buggy unfinished games, they literally make you pay for beta now. Wow

#99 Posted by Spitfire-Six (587 posts) -

@clr84651: I see that now but I. Reguards to what I was taught when it comes to software testing is that betas are for stress test and functionality pricing was normally handled by marketing. Times have changed

#100 Posted by Liquid_ (2885 posts) -

@Sword-Demon said:

@Liquid_ said:

@Sword-Demon said:

@Liquid_ said:

who cares, people will complain and sony will cater to the cows, unlike microsoft.

umm.. MS DID cater to their fans when they complained, remember?

last I checked X1 is in last below Wii-U

And how is that relevant to the conversation?

Didn't lems want everything Sony gave? And look what they got. I'm not talking about used game policy or price.

Is your tunnel vision relevant?