el oh el $20
What if you got a brand new AAA 10-hour adventure game for a month at that price? I think a lot of people would go for that.
$20 for a month
$10 for two weeks
$3 for a week
I wouldn't mind that.
I'm still a bit confused that people seem to think they should price new games at like $10 for a week rental. When you can easily play to completion most story driven games in a week.
Of course. But thats not gonna happen.
What we do have is 20 bux for generation-old games. Which is crap.
games that you can play instantly, without needing to download gigs of data, across multiple systems, anywhere with an internet connection.
is there no added value in that?
games that you can play instantly, without needing to download gigs of data, across multiple systems, anywhere with an internet connection.
is there no added value in that?
What is the newest game thats on the service though?
Plus that there will be PS4 titles available as well.
Current pricing model is debatable, I could see it fit some niche scenarios like "non-gamer X has a Bravia TV, gets a controller and tries out some games". But I do believe a subscription model to cater also towards the core audience is a must.
I know that there was a hint that ps4 games would be on this... but I would be absolutely shocked if we do get non-indie, ps4 exclusive stuff on this service. Shocked.
what's crazy to me is how easily so many people would sign up for a monthly subscription for this.
sure I'm sure a lot of people would really get a lot of use out of the service but I think a significant amount of people would simply subscribe to the service and probably rarely use it, maybe one game here, one game there. they'd actually end up spending more money and the value would be worse than $20 for 90 days for one game.
maybe I'm wrong though. how many people subscribe to netflix and BARELY use it? (me)
You're in the minority.what's crazy to me is how easily so many people would sign up for a monthly subscription for this.
sure I'm sure a lot of people would really get a lot of use out of the service but I think a significant amount of people would simply subscribe to the service and probably rarely use it, maybe one game here, one game there. they'd actually end up spending more money and the value would be worse than $20 for 90 days for one game.
maybe I'm wrong though. how many people subscribe to netflix and BARELY use it? (me)
You're in the minority.
based on what?
Hard to say since we have no data- but you have no data to support your side either.
Actually, what we do have is the fact that Netflix IS very popular, and psn users have shown that they are willing to use a sub model as seen in ps+.
i'd be willing to wager that there's a significant amount of ps+ subscribers that download lots of the free games and RARELY play them as well.
Subscriptions are generally more attractive in people's minds than something that's defined like a singular item because subscriptions aren't finite. It encourages hoarding mentality and you don't have the same boundaries of "worth" to it as you do with a singular item. People make subconscious guesstimates and a vague recollection of what things are "supposed to cost" by comparing it in context with something of the same vein (ala Netflix), plus the "it costs less than $1 a day!" mentality makes any price seem quite reasonable (instead of $ per hour).
Subscriptions are generally more attractive in people's minds than something that's defined like a singular item because subscriptions aren't finite. It encourages hoarding mentality and you don't have the same boundaries of "worth" to it as you do with a singular item. People make subconscious guesstimates and a vague recollection of what things are "supposed to cost" by comparing it in context with something of the same vein (ala Netflix), plus the "it costs less than $1 a day!" mentality makes any price seem quite reasonable (instead of $ per hour).
If they went subscription I'd cry out for a one time fee option, so I guess you can't win.
You'd need a lot of content to justify a subscription.
well put
I don't disagree with you, but the counter-argument is F2P games (especially on mobile) where you pay a la carte. A game like Candy Crush has used that business model to perfection and made hundreds of millions from it.
Put there entirely to sell the 7 day option.bwahaha still can't believe its really a 4-hour option.
I'm not sure. I think a game like Alpha Protocol seems to priced decently but the Saints Row image on the last page is ridiculous.
I'm just assuming new games will come to the service eventually maybe that's not the plan? I feel a new(ish) game that's worth $60 - 50 at retail seems fair to rent for $20 for a week. Assuming it's a game I can finish in that amount of time. I'm saving about the same as if I bought it at retail and then traded it back in a week later.
But games that are worth around $30, I would assume to pay around $10 for a week.
FOUR HOURS for $4.99?
That shit is like a cruel joke. I hope they really get more serious with the pricing if that is true across a broad spectrum of new games
These prices won't last long lol
Sounds like they have no solid idea on what this is worth to consumers yet.
What if you got a brand new AAA 10-hour adventure game for a month at that price? I think a lot of people would go for that.
How many brand new AAA games are coming to PS3 that aren't coming to PS4 already? 0?
Have you used the service? Say what you want about this (non-final) pricing, but if you have a decent internet connection you will be shocked at how well it works.Well it's worth $0 to me unless they can magically solve latency issues that are inherent in a setup like this. So far it seems far cheaper and more usable to just not throw away my PS3 than to use this service.