PlayStation Now Streaming Service Available On Windows PCs (techcrunch.com)

Earlier this month, Sony announced PlayStation 3 games would be coming to Windows. Specifically, the company would be bringing its PlayStation Now game-streaming program to Windows PCs. Today, the service has officially launched and is available on Windows PCs. TechCrunch reports: "A 12-month subscription to PlayStation Now will run you $99.99 as part of a limited-time promotion to celebrate the PC launch. Normally, a PS Now subscription will run you more than double that. What does PlayStation Now actually provide? Access to a library of over 50 'Greatest Hits' games, which include popular titles like Mafia II, Tom Raider: GOTY edition, Borderlands and Heavy Rain. There's also over 100 console exclusives available to PC users for the first time, and a total library north of 400 games." If you're interested, you can download the app here. A USB adapter is set to go on sale September 6 that will allow you to use a DualShock 4 wireless controller with your PC.

Comments

How quickly we forget

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony DRM installs a rootkit
Revisiting the Infamous Sony BMG Rootkit Scandal 10 Years Later

Why?

[youngone]

As a Steam user, why would I want this? Just another epic Sony fail.

Re:Why?

[Opportunist]

Steam actually found that sweet spot between walling the user in and offering him what he wants. Allow me to elaborate.

What does NOT work with Steam? Well, I cannot really sensibly resell the game I bought unless I sell the account it is bound to along with the game, which is afaik against the TOS. At least until Steam finds out that they could make a cut of that sale and doesn't fear that studios dump them for basically becoming a way worse version than GameStop (from the Studios' view).

Aside of this, Steam is quite permissive, going as far as offering me the Linux version of games I bought for Windows where available when I launch it in Linux. Now, could you imagine this in a MS-Shop? Or a Mac-Shop? I somehow doubt that you would get Android versions of programs you bought for iPhone, even if you could install the iShop (or whatever it's called) on an Android phone.

The permissiveness of Steam even goes so far that you can "share" your game library with friends to some degree. Personally, I can't really say that there is anything I'm missing.

And this is all the difference. What matters is whether the limitations you're dealing with actually cut into your experience. Steam offers a lot of convenience. No DVDs to hunt down in the mess I call apartment, no hours of patching before playing, double click to install, double click to play. Easy. And yes, there are limitations, mostly concerning the resale of the software. Doesn't affect me, though. But what DOES affect me is that I can return software after playing it for a few minutes and noticing that it's a messy, buggy, unstable piece of junk or simply noticing that I don't like it.

Try that with your local game retailer.

Streamed Games = Next Level DRM

[Kunedog]

Since Onlive was in the news, I repost this every time streamed games come up because it's the best way I know to explain this kind of DRM:

Imagine if the Ubisoft always-on DRM had been an inherent, unremoveable aspect of the game system rather than just something tacked on to a few individual games after the fact, such that Ubisoft couldn't even begrudgingly neuter it in a patch. Well, streamed games are even worse than that would be.

The game doesn't even run locally. All you get is streaming video/audio and all the lag you'd expect (including controller lag), which is a recipe for disaster in North America.

Let's say you're lucky enough to have a 30mb/s connection. Why would you want to use it to transfer your game's video instead of, uh, a DVI cable, which is capable of 4 Gb/s? The people who developed DVI apparently understood that that 1920 x 1200 pixels w/ 24 bits/pixels @ 60Hz results in bandwidth well over 3 Gb/s. The people who push streamed gaming seem very, very confused (at best).

Some people consider IPS monitors unsuitable for games requiring fast reflexes (i.e. FPSes) due to their double-digit response times. Internet latency is often worse and certainly more unpredictable than LCD monitor response time, and with streamed games it applies to audio and keyboard/controller/etc input too.

Those of us who know anything about bandwidth and compression and (especially) latency can see the enormous technical obstacles facing a service like this, and I've never heard anyone explain how they intend to solve them. Onlive (for example) did everything they could to lock out independent reviewers with NDAs and closed demonstrations. A friend of mine described it as the gaming equivalent of the perpetual motion scam, and IMO that's spot on (except that streaming would still have the draconian DRM issues even if it worked perfectly).

Streamed gaming appears designed from the ground up to benefit the game publishers and fuck the customers, exactly as you'd expect from any DRM system.