Slashdot Mirror
PlayStation Now, Sony's 'Netflix For Games' -- Pros and Cons
An anonymous reader writes: When Sony acquired nascent cloud gaming service Gaikai, it was obvious they were interested in bringing streamed gaming to the PlayStation. The service is in the process of coming online, in a beta test that started this week. The idea is simple, and one that game companies are excited about — but it's also complex and expensive, creating a new problem for each one it solves. The biggest difficulty you'd expect — latency — actually seems to hold up pretty well. It'll even hold its own when fighting for bandwidth with Netflix and other video streams.
But the expense of using the service is excessive. "To rent Darksiders, a game that's been practically given away to PC owners thanks to Humble Bundle and the collapse of publisher THQ, you can pay $14.99 for 90 days, $7.99 for 30 days, $5.99 for 5 days or — no joke — $4.99 for four hours. ... Final Fantasy 13-2 costs $29.99 for 90 days. A used copy of the same costs $20 at GameStop." In addition, the pricing options are unusual and unpredictable. Users can't simply pay a flat monthly fee for service. "Variable pricing is in place because Sony gave the publishers and developers free reign to set their own prices, which results in wildly disparate costs for different games and different periods of rental time. It's not even mandatory that you have to have all four categories of rental time. I went to check out Saints Row 3 and found that it only had the four hour and 90 day options."
But the expense of using the service is excessive. "To rent Darksiders, a game that's been practically given away to PC owners thanks to Humble Bundle and the collapse of publisher THQ, you can pay $14.99 for 90 days, $7.99 for 30 days, $5.99 for 5 days or — no joke — $4.99 for four hours. ... Final Fantasy 13-2 costs $29.99 for 90 days. A used copy of the same costs $20 at GameStop." In addition, the pricing options are unusual and unpredictable. Users can't simply pay a flat monthly fee for service. "Variable pricing is in place because Sony gave the publishers and developers free reign to set their own prices, which results in wildly disparate costs for different games and different periods of rental time. It's not even mandatory that you have to have all four categories of rental time. I went to check out Saints Row 3 and found that it only had the four hour and 90 day options."
Anyone else remember sega channel for sega genesis? i think 11.99 got me unlimited games on it for the month (granted i only recall 5-8 games on it at a time, and they would rotate every month) Seems like a much better price structure to me. 9.99 a month to play whatever limited rotating catalog is there, i think a number of gamers would pay for that, but with the prices the way they are talking it will fail (after it makes moms and dads angry at their kids for their 200 a month gaming bill)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
They are so far removed from their customers, they don't even see it anymore when they're gouging them in one way or another. They bought their own intellectual property propaganda hook, line and sinker. Can't let the consumers have anything for a flat fee. Can't let them use anything in a way that wasn't intended.
Sony, things don't become valuable by putting locks and price tags on them. Repent or you're finished.
I was a huge fan of OnLive, probably spent 300+ hours using the service. it's a shame it went under, but I'm glad to get the Now.
the best part of Now is it will bring a deep library of older games to my PS4, which is suffering a bit of a content drought. I'm not worried about the pricing, as I usually burn through a game in two or three weeks and rarely touch it after. So $8 seems like a fair price to pay for bringing the best of the PS3 library to my PS4.
Were it "Netflix for games" you'd pay a flat monthly fee and be able to play whatever game(s) you want.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
That is one hell of a mess.
They should have went with fixed subs.
Pay-per-use is more like Blockbuster or something else similar. Look how that turned out.
Having BOTH systems isn't that bad though.
PPU and a subscription is the best method. Throw in PAYG and you will actually have a service that will last more than 3 years.
This is awful. If this were something affordable and flat rate it would be an amazing success. -gotta be a way, better way, better waaay hey..
Having BOTH systems isn't that bad though. PPU and a subscription is the best method.
yeah right. onlive opened with this model, and people here went apeshit. heck, people on here complain because they pay for cable and have to watch ads too.
Were it "Netflix for games" you'd pay a flat monthly fee and be able to play whatever game(s) you want.
There are plenty of movies that aren't on Netflix streaming. Now if you meant Netflix's DVD service, then the Netflix of video games is called GameFly.
Reign means "to rule over" or, in noun form, the period of rulership (Elizabeth's long reign). Reins are the straps used to control a horse in saddle or harness. To be given free rein is to be allowed to do as you please. To rein someone in is to prevent them from doing as they please.
http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/03/rein-or-reign/
It is called PSN. A PSN+ membership is roughly 50EUR a year here. That's more or less the price of an AAA game. And you get so many good games, you won't have the time to enjoy them all. So, unless you like collecting games, nothing beats PSN+ in value for money. At least not in the console world ;-)
I wonder what made Sony invest in this new crap. I doubt they will make more money with that, since it seems to be much more favourable to the developers than the distributor. And with Steam boxes around the corner, who is going to pay that much for renting streamed games?
This is one of those problems a free market can solve. It might lead to better games, if some games do well at higher prices while others have to lower theirs.
There's your biggest con, right there.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I wonder what made Sony invest in this new crap.
Inability to get a reliable PlayStation 2 and 3 emulator running on a PlayStation 4, I'm guessing.
And with Steam boxes around the corner, who is going to pay that much for renting streamed games?
People who want specific titles that are on PlayStation but not Steam for Linux. These can be PlayStation exclusives, PS360 games that aren't ported to PC, or PS3/Steam games whose Steam version is Windows-only.
Not with this pricing model.
PSA: On consoles, it's much cheaper to buy retail discs than to touch any form of digital-only delivery. Especially if you're willing to wait a few months from launch, but even if you buy the latest and greatest(tm).
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
if i ever get in the mood i'll just play some crap from gog
On consoles, it's much cheaper to buy retail discs than to touch any form of digital-only delivery.
Unless, of course, the game is not sold on disc at all. Many of these are games of smaller scope than a typical disc game.
...here's why:
Renting games is ANY company's wettest dream. Hollywood have a long history of re-releasing their old office hits over and over again, milking the same cow into retirement and even beyond the grave, and families of actors & owners loves this, it's a guaranteed way to get money - basically forever!
Why sell you the game, when they can rent it to you over and over again? Remember that cool GTA5 game you paid 60$ (Some of us in Sweden paid 120$ for it) back in the days? 10 years later you want to revive your "fun days" and in a future of "rental only" game systems, they'll be able to MILK you into oblivion for as long as it takes, with literally millions of old programs from every system, simply because you didn't protect your purchases - it's not their fault either, it's YOU who accept it and thinks it's totally okay to do so.
Netflix is a GREAT ad-free service, so much so that I've been lazy when it comes to my DVD collection. But what Netflix doesn't give me is a permanent possibility to relive those fun moments I had with a few flicks some years ago...unless they've paid for the license to retain the flick in their collection. When it's in MY DVD collection, I don't need a license or permission, I just dust of that old DVD player and have a GREAT time - for free (or at least get the full value of true ownership).
I have Wii-U, and we finally have some great games for it (certainly took a while), it even comes with downloadable indie-games that are so cheap (and fun) they rival the second-hand store/game-this-and-game-that-stores AND it's possible to RE-install on the same console if I should decide to sell the console, that's okay in my book...downloadable games as long as they're somewhat transferable...is the future and the way to go, I love not having to SWITCH between CDs all the time.
So there you have it, Sony Or Microsoft won't get my money this time as they've chosen the wrong way - excessive greed.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
"But the expense of using the service is excessive, blah blah" = "It costs too much."
This company is the master of shooting themselves in the foot. One way or another.
That's because you have the streaming service instead of the DVD rental service.
Bandwidth caps will kill this and I personally will never use the service cap or no caps. I want zero worries about bandwidth usage. And I refuse to rent games ever.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Netflix gives me unlimited access to an enormous library of content for $8/mo. Playstastion Now gives me temporary access to individually purchased items. The two are nothing alike, other than the fact that they transmit temporarily owned content over the internet to the customer.
As to the pricing issues -- yes, they are destined to fail. Netflix and Amazon Prime made it cheaper and easier to pay for content than for people to acquire it through other means. Services like RDIO made it almost absurd to bother acquiring music any other way, for the mere $5/mo. A gaming service could accomplish this, but they need to provide a massive catalog of consistent content without a thousand strings attached and for a really low price. Additionally, it needs to be through a unified distribution channel; nobody wants to subscribe to EA, then to Ubisoft, then to Valve, then to Activision/Blizzard, then to Riot, then to Sony, then to Microsoft.
Gaming suffers from the problem television still does and that others (music and movies) used to (but still do, to a smaller extent). They want to profit from constraining their distribution; not operate like the manufacturer of ANY other product. Almost every company in the world wants their product in as many stores as possible for as many avenues to the customer as possible. They don't care if they're sold at the gas station, convenience store, Amazon.com, Target, Albertson's, and Safeway. Unfortunately, when it comes to digital media -- especially games -- some are available only on Origin. Some only on Steam. Some only on GOG. Some only on one platform for awhile, then no longer. This model has to change. Constraint and hassle needs to be eradicated. Distribution channels need to compete not on exclusivity, but on price and service and interface and community.
Until that happens, this ridiculous "pay a dollar or more an hour for a twenty year old game streamed over the internet" idea is dead.
Yes, well when cable was first offered, the point of paying the premiums was to avoid ads.. It's still a legitimate complaint. It's just that suckers who dog people who complain about ads have saddled the rest of us with the worst combo, paying for ads.
This is just the latest blast of greed from Sony with this console.
I purchased a PS4 just a week or two ago, after holding out this long with our aging PS3 system -- under the assumption it would be a worth successor. In a few ways, it is. Certainly, the new DualShock controllers are one of the highlights. They're more comfortable to hold, have the ability to plug in headphones and route the game audio through them, have the touch-pad in the middle, different colored lights indicating player 1, 2, 3, etc. Good stuff. But then I discovered you couldn't even download your MP3 music to the PS4 from a memory stick to play it! The only way it seems to allow music playing is via a subscription service! Then you have to pay for the PSNetwork, or else you're pretty much locked out of playing games online. (That was always a reason I preferred PS3 to X-Box in the past... Don't like to pay subscription fees just for the privilege of online play of games I just paid $60 a pop for!)
I'm *almost* surprised Sony didn't tell me that like my satellite TV box, I'm simply renting it from them and must return it when my subscription with them expires!
Thanks guys but would you fucking stop now? First you decide locked-in un-upgradeably consoles are cool. Then you decide DRM-laden games are cool.
Now you're going to make the industry think we all want to rent games ad-inifinitum. For fuck's sake STOP!!!
I sometimes like to play my games from 10 years ago. Will you be able to do that? FFS...
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.