-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PS NOW. Rentals from US$2.99 to US$19.99.
- Thread starter Guymelef
- Start date
Natureboy99
Banned
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.
Of course. But thats not gonna happen.
What we do have is 20 bux for generation-old games. Which is crap.
Fallout-with-swords
Banned
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.
Natureboy99
Banned
3*2=6
3*4=12
Pretty sure the $3 would have to be for one or two days, or the $20 would need to be for 3 months.
What is the newest game thats on the service though?
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?
Not for me to where I'd pay that. I imagine most people are just going to use this on their home console, so portability is useless. Most of the games here are small, and would DL quickly.
I keep coming back to this- they really need a fucking monthly unlimited sub. And my ceiling for that is 20 bux, so Im DEFINITELY not paying 20 bucks for one game.
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.
Fallout-with-swords
Banned
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.
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.
Luft Vanship
Banned
I'd rather have a monthly subscription like netflix or hulu, something between 9.99 or 14.99 a month would be the sweet spot.
The long term plan was to have the entire PlayStation family available through the service, Sony reps I spoke to at Gamescom last year said as much.
Timeline and availability of all that though we'll see.
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)
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.
AmuroChan
Member
I think that's a pretty safe assumption. I know people who have initiated download via the PSN store website even though they don't own the console. If it's free, people will download it. It's the hoarding mentality of the masses.
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).
sometimes i game
Member
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.
You'd need a lot of content to justify a subscription.
well put
While I agree we should make our voices heard regarding the pricing, we should also remember this is a beta and that publishers set prices, not Sony. Although if they started low with prices we would gripe if they hiked them. So they probably started high so they can be praised when they lower them.
But some of the hyperbolic knee-jerk reactions in here are hilarious. That said, I would also like a subscription option with a rotating roster. And 1, 7, 14, 30 options would be better than what's there now.
But some of the hyperbolic knee-jerk reactions in here are hilarious. That said, I would also like a subscription option with a rotating roster. And 1, 7, 14, 30 options would be better than what's there now.
AmuroChan
Member
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.
There's an old sales truth about offering multiple pricing options that is used everywhere. People’s choice is influenced by offering different options. Offering different price points will ultimately make people choose between those plans, instead of choosing whether to buy the product or not. An important distinction.
You have something you wan't to sell? Try offering three or four versions of it, and if there is one in particular that you really want to sell, make it the middle one.
Thanks
Which is why I think Sony will be offering both a la carte options and a subscription model in the end.
FantasticMrFoxdie
Mumber
bwahaha still can't believe its really a 4-hour option.
Put there entirely to sell the 7 day option.
hodayathink
Member
Newer games than this should be coming (hell, they demoed it with TLOU, which is newer than nearly every game we've seen so far), but it makes no sense to put them in the beta unless they're first party games, because I seriously doubt that the third parties are allowing them to use these games in the beta for free.
PseudoViper
Member
EA rentals = $19.99 + taxes
PseudoViper
Member
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
That assumes you have a PS3 to play it on, versus this rental that will (eventually) work on the PS3, PSTV, Vita, PS4, and god knows what else.
Not a bad deal if you finish it in 30 days, too, which is more than enough time to play FFXIII-2.
I'll agree, the 4 hour option is pretty dumb It might just be there to push you into not renting a short game and finishing it in one sitting, though, like some shorter PSN games and such. 4 hours is too little for most campaigns, sure, but bump it to a 6 hour rental and suddenly you can finish most games in one sitting.
Supermanisdead
Member
imagine renting a game like persona 4 for 4 hours. it'd be a 4 hour movie!!!
They are still testing the prices.
Remember everyone it's a beta and pricing is still not set in stone. Use their Private Feedback forum if you are in the Beta to give feedback about the prices.
Moosehole
Member
I can't say a lot cause I've been under NDA during the beta but back in January Sony mentioned a couple other options for PS Now pricing.
I hope they plan on using those as well because these rental prices are shit. It will be a shame if this is the only option because the service actually works extremely well.
I hope they plan on using those as well because these rental prices are shit. It will be a shame if this is the only option because the service actually works extremely well.
hodayathink
Member
I seriously doubt they were ever intended to.
mohsinkhan
Member
I was interested in this service, but not at these prices.
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.
soulassssns
Banned
Got accepted into the beta but now what? Where is it on PSN?
EightBitNate
Member
How many brand new AAA games are coming to PS3 that aren't coming to PS4 already? 0?
Persona 5 is one at least.
Moosehole
Member
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.
mohsinkhan
Member
Maybe Sony is looking at families or people who don't have dedicated gaming consoles, but just have a Bravia TV, maybe it makes more sense for them to rent at these prices. I think Bravias coming in the next year or so will bundle in DS3 controllers.