PS2 Games Join PlayStation Now Streaming Catalog

There are nearly 650 games in the PS Now library.

32 Comments

Sony continues to update and expand PlayStation Now, the company's game streaming service. As announced today, the PS Now catalog now includes PlayStation 2 titles. The first of these are the PS2 titles Ape Escape 2, Dark Cloud 2, and Hot Shots Tennis.

These games display in high definition and also include Trophies to unlock and collect, Sony confirmed in a PlayStation Blog post today.

No Caption Provided

Outside of the first wave of PS2 games, the PS Now library has added the dark and wonderful platformer Limbo and Metal Slug 3. Additionally, Mystery Chronicle: One Way Heroics, Sine Mora EX, Siren, and The Last Blade 2 join the library today. What's more, Blazblue Chrono Phantasma Extend is now in the catalog as an upgrade from PS3 to PS4.

PlayStation Now started off with only PlayStation 3 games. In March 2017, Sony announced that PlayStation 4 games would also be included; and now PlayStation 2 titles have arrived.

In addition to announcing the next PlayStation Now games, Sony revealed a list of the most popular games on the service in April. Titles that made the list for February included Red Dead Redemption, God of War 3 Remastered, WWE 2K16, Mortal Kombat, NBA 2K16, Homefront: The Revolution, God of War Collection, Fallout New Vegas, Sid Meier's Civilization Revolution, and Sonic Generations.

PlayStation Now gives players unlimited access to a library of nearly 650 titles for $20 a month. Sony updates the PS Now catalog with a new batch of games monthly. For more, check out GameSpot's roundup of all the PlayStation Now games here.

May 2018 PlayStation Now Games:

  • Ape Escape 2
  • Blazblue Chrono Phantasma Extend
  • Dark Cloud 2
  • Hot Shots Tennis
  • The Last Blade 2
  • Limbo
  • Metal Slug 3
  • Mystery Chronicle: One Way Heroics
  • Sine Mora EX
  • Siren

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 32 comments about this story
32 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

I'd rather buy them on Steam or GOG and have them on my local machine instead of renting them via streaming service.

Avatar image for theKSMM
theKSMM

This is an exciting development. Since Sony gave up on backwards compatibility, it has made it difficult to play many of the classics from the PlayStation library. If they've gotten PS2 games running, I hope to see an explosion of games from one of the greatest console libraries of all time, followed by PSone games. PS Now is a great value. I hate that they stopped developing the PS3 and PSVita clients.

Avatar image for jagdedge124
jagdedge124

Well, that's something Xbox is doing much better. I bought an original Xbox game from the store, and the game is actually totally remastered, where as with PS, you're playing the old game.

I own both systems, but don't have PS Plus, and use Gold with Xbox. But if PS made an attempt like Xbox to make their PS2 library free, with actual remastered games, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

Personally, i like the older games better. There was just so much more to them, when today it's all about fluff. You just don't see games like that anymore.

Avatar image for speed45823
speed45823

Meanwhile. Xbox One has ACTUAL backward compatibility with older titles that doesn't require a monthly subscription. Get your act together Sony. People want the real thing. Not this paid streaming BS.

Avatar image for Barighm
Barighm

@speed45823: Er...no, the X1 doesn't have actual BC. You can't just stick an old game into an X1 and it will play. You have to download it first, so if you don't have an online connection, you're stuck. That's not true BC.

Avatar image for theKSMM
theKSMM

@Barighm: I'd say this is nit-picking. And given that the games often run better on XONE than they did on X360, I'd say that the download trade-off is worth it.

Avatar image for Xristophoros
Xristophoros

@speed45823: xbox has backwards compatibility because it failed with its software library on the x1. microsoft had to make up for it and this was their solution... seems to be working on pleasing SOME gamers and having them forget about everything else that has gone wrong with the x1 since launch. sony made up for this by putting out the best 1st party games in the industry. i think it is a great trade off and wouldn't have it any other way. ps4 is by far the best platform this gen, with or without backwards compatibility. if ps5 launches with backwards compatibility for "playstation games" since the ps1, people will lose their shit no doubt. i can see sony getting ps1 and ps2 games to work via emulation, but not ps3 for obvious reasons.

Avatar image for speed45823
speed45823

@Xristophoros: Let's face it. Microsoft was never big on exclusive games anyways even way back from the OG Xbox era. You have your Halos, Forzas and Gears of Wars just to name a few bigger Xbox exclusives but that's about it. They know it and we know it. So instead, they work on other things like this backward compatibility support, cross platform support (Which Sony refused to do many times) and other ideas which are always appreciated.

Avatar image for deactivated-5c746fddbe486

@speed45823: plus they look and run even better, those 4K enhance X360 titles look stunning

Avatar image for legendaryh1tman
legendaryh1tman

@speed45823: Not just is what you meant. Options are always great for the consumer.

Avatar image for darkelf83
darkelf83

@speed45823: First, that's about all Xbox has going for it this generation. MS seems to have little interest in pushing out much in the way of new games. Second, why then is MS also considering a streaming service? While not confirmed to stream games, it isn't denied either.

They also have GamePass, which is a similar style service. Much better since you can download the games but I'm sure MS has learned from some of Sony's mistakes. Also to note the Xbox did not launch with backwards compatibility, nor is it true backwards compatibility. You can only play approved games, PS3 proved that real backwards compatibility is hard.

While we may not like what Sony is doing, somebody does. They must have subscribers and enough that the company is happy with it or they'd drop it. Figures from last year showed that the service was growing and while Sony won't offer hard numbers they did give a few percentages that they were happy with.

You say people want the real thing but why do they pay for this? Why do the surveys not show overwhelming support for it?

Avatar image for legendaryh1tman
legendaryh1tman

@darkelf83: You're first statement is wrong by a long shot. Fact. They have pushed out new games they just haven't been hit and runs like SONY already long time established studios have been putting out. Both consoles offer something great for the consumer that the other doesn't so leave that fan boy shit alone guys. I own both and don't miss out on shit. People that argue which is better are chump hater ass biotches. So don't be one of those guys and gals. SONY PS NOW, that streaming pile is a mess but it's an "option". Not sure why they limit their consumer "options" like not having EA Access when they too would profit, but I'm betting it's because they strongly want to push that pile of streaming mess that is PS NOW.

Eitherway Sony has provided new high quality standard exclusive experiences. While Microsoft has offered high quality hardware, services and proper BC options. For me I'm in it with both for the long haul until the wheels fall off.

Avatar image for Redsyrup
Redsyrup

Let me get this straight. I pay 20 bucks a month and then I can play games I already own? This is a phenomenal deal.

Avatar image for OtakuD50
OtakuD50

@Redsyrup: You're forgetting the part where you can play games you don't own, for a system that might be gathering dust, without the need to fiddle around with memory cards or decaying game pads.

Avatar image for Barighm
Barighm

@OtakuD50: Decaying game pads? The reliability of my older controllers blow the newer ones away.

Avatar image for OtakuD50
OtakuD50

@Barighm: Your mileage may vary.

Avatar image for nedrith
nedrith

@Redsyrup: If you already own them then at some point you owned a PS3. You could buy a PS3 for cheap as well. So you don't have to pay 20 bucks a month to play games you already own. PS Now is IMO more for people like me who didn't play every game they were interested in during the PS3 era so I can play games that weren't worth the money because of how short they were or they weren't my main genre. It allows me to play whatever game is on the service without having to feel bad about not completing the game so the only risk is lost time.

With that said, $20 a month is way too high. $5, maybe $10 a month even if a PS+ subscription is required to get PS now and I'd probably subscribe to it without a second thought. MAYBE eventually a $20 a month price tag will be worth it if they add enough PS2 and maybe PS1 games to the catalog.

Avatar image for legendaryh1tman
legendaryh1tman

What a meh service. A large percentage of SONY users are offline when they play. Xbox certainly hit the ball out the park with BC. Here's to hoping PS5 some how lets you play your old catalog of classic games with out repurchasing them at ridiculous prices or crappy streaming. But I doubt they drop the streaming mess for a more proper BC option. Seems SONY offers better new experience while Microsoft offers better old experiences. Oh competition.

I still don't understand why they turned down EA Access. Not like their catalog is huge and they still would of made some kind of profit off it while still giving their consumers options. Kinda lame to not give your gamers more options. At least they got the new exclusives on lock. I'll just continue to buy multiple consoles to enjoy those rare top notch exclusives they have to offer and multiplayer fun with friends and fam on Xbox Live.

Avatar image for Barighm
Barighm

@legendaryh1tman: "I still don't understand why they turned down EA Access."

Because EA doesn't deserve money and needs to go away. Clearly Sony fans agree given how well PSN is doing.

Avatar image for jfn2
jfn2

yet nobody was interested in backwards compatibility according to their "research", and that's why they removed the emotion engine from the original backwards compatible ps3 systems? I'd been a manager at a video game store for over a decade, and that's what the sony rep told me (with a straight face, mind you). LOL at sony to their FACE. why would folks be interested in such a "ridiculous" thing now? playing older games? who does that? weird, huh? does new "research" tell you otherwise, or was it simply because the originally included emotion engine made less money for you from the ps3? I see how well THAT worked out for you. idiots....

Avatar image for neurogia
Neurogia

@jfn2: I'd argue that now more than ever backwards compatibility is more important, because game development times are getting extremely long. God of War took 5 years to develop, and people need something to play during the interim.

Avatar image for jfn2
jfn2

@neurogia: that's an awfully good point. I'd never thought about it from that perspective. plus, now more than ever, most retro consoles and games are going for crazy prices, so the demand is higher than ever. I said what I did since what the sony rep told me still irks me to this day. customers were doing nothing but griping to me all day, every day, about how the newer ps3 models were no longer compatible with ps2 games, even returning their ps3 since they were unaware of the change and felt duped. all that I could do was to put on my happy face and tell them "but hey, they'll still play ps1 games". that didn't ever change anyone's mind, and I lost a ton of sales that way, which of course affected my bonuses and raises. I just felt as if (and still do) that the sony rep simply lied to me straight up, which I'm sure that's the line that he was instructed to parrot to anyone who asked about the issue. I suppose that I just need to learn to get over things like that, and just let them go. lol. thanks for your reply! I love it....

Avatar image for darkelf83
darkelf83

@neurogia: If you couldn't find something to play over the last five years you're not looking. There have been many great games in many genres. Waiting for just one game is crazy and not worth the console price. Also they plan to shorten the development cycle of the next few now that the engine is mostly finished.

Avatar image for Barighm
Barighm

Still overpriced. Still sucks. Game Pass is much better.

Avatar image for gamingdevil800
gamingdevil800

@Barighm: People are obviously paying for it though. And there are rumours that xbox are going to do their own streaming games service so it must be succeeding to some extent. Wouldn't complain though if Sony did their own game pass for downloads though, it would be less games and half the price though. In terms of value $10 of game pass gets you a 100+ while $20 PS Now gets you 650+ but not everyone has a good enough connection for streaming.

In the UK though it's £7.99 for Game Pass & £12.99 for PS Now which isn't much of a difference to me.

Avatar image for ballashotcaller
ballaShotCaller

it's a bad service. not sure who thought of this.

Avatar image for Elranzer
Elranzer

@ballashotcaller: Dave Perry was a charlatan who sold it to Sony. Sony is trying to justify their buyer's remorse.

Avatar image for Xristophoros
Xristophoros

@ballashotcaller: no, it's a good service actually. what is bad is people's internet service which is preventing them from getting optimal performance. even if there is room for improvement, at least sony is ahead of the curve and not lacking in foresight like microsoft. in 10 years, streaming will be much improved and a go-to option for many gamers. i highly doubt you have even tried the service to know anything about it first hand.

Avatar image for neurogia
Neurogia

@Xristophoros: In 10 years the vast majority of people in North America would be lucky to get 25mbps d/l speed. There's still a LONG way to go before most people get good internet with unlimited bandwidth.

Avatar image for Xristophoros
Xristophoros

@neurogia: there might never be a day where everyone has decent internet, but that cannot be helped. the world is an unfair and unjust place. that doesn't mean a streaming service cannot one day be viable and popular. 25mb/s in theory should be fast enough, but from my personal experience (using wireless) it does not cut it. i hear wired at 25mb/s is pretty good, though... or should i say, good enough.

Avatar image for Redsyrup
Redsyrup

@Xristophoros: It's latency that kills these types of services not download speeds. Unless Sony's willing to build a datacenter in every city there's no way to make this a pleasant experience for most gamers.

Avatar image for Xristophoros
Xristophoros

@Redsyrup: true, latency is a killer for fast paced, competitive gaming. but not every game fits that category so there is still a lot of potential with streaming in the years to come. it definitely needs improvement, no doubt.