Just because people are willing to pay for it doesn't mean its right, it's kind of like microtransactions and DLC, there is value for money and then there is Namco.
-
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
Just because people are willing to pay for it doesn't mean its right, it's kind of like microtransactions and DLC, there is value for money and then there is Namco.
That Square-Enix tax is doubling down on rentals haha.
The latency in the beta really isn't that bad and I have a crappy internet connection where my PS4 is hooked up.
Surprised somebody finally pointed this out. Sony's allowing the publishers to set the price.
Harlock
Member
Someone at Sony made the price structure in the model of movie/tv shows. But are apple vs bananas. First the price of video content rent is too big anyway, and second games is not something you rent to watch for 2 hours at same time. You like to have the games, play half hour today, come back next week etc.
Sony has to let them set the price. That is the only way of guaranteed profits. They get a % of the sales of the games (and for using their service) and have no strings attached aka taking a loss on games "for sale". As long as the companies set prices they can use the amazon price model and just collect their "fee".
The only way this backfires is if no one uses it and they lose money hosting the service.
stargateheaven
Member
That's nothing new. Publishers always set the price.
hodayathink
Member
If they didn't leave it in publisher's hands, then we'd literally see no games on the service besides Sony developed games and a few indies. They have to give publishers pricing control or most of them won't be willing to put their games up at all.
And if Sony really wants to set an example for other publishers, they'll put their own games up there for a cheaper/more reasonable price (because I don't think any of the screenshots I've seen are for Sony published games), and show the other publishers how much money they're making off of their prices (especially if everyone else's are crazy), which will get everyone else to drop their prices, too.
And that's what the week and month long rental periods are for, and most of those prices are actually pretty reasonable.
Last year Redbox made over $6 per share. Netflix made less than $2 per share.
We also hear, that most of the people finish SP games over the weekend and trade-in back.
Game rental services like gamefly is doing well. There is a market for quick rent and finish type of service.
They should have a second option for $25/mo with the ability to play 3-4 games a month.
Yea and at those prices there is a good chance it will fail.
I suppose the right thing to do would have the rental = a percentage of the current digital price.
So in FF13-2's case it would be a percentage of the $19.99 and it should have the option to buy as well.
PSNow price = Price to host the game + Price of the game.
It is like renting PS3 and a game from redbox. Not just the game.
hodayathink
Member
Life isn't all peaches and cream for Netflix either. The price to buy content is going to do nothing but go up and up, not to mention the cost of creating their own content.
BattleMonkey
Member
It always was going to be in the hands of the publishers, no matter what Sony would dictate, if the publishers of the games didn't like the prices, they simply would not use the service.
Sony needs to lead by example and put it's own games up on the service for cheap, show the others that if that can work out at a low price point, that they should also offer up their games on the service for similar pricing.
If you start to piss of pubs, it will be a disaster. Already we have seen how strong handed pub's like EA, Square are. They were happy to walk away from Vita, WiiU.. If PS Now needs to be successful, Sony has to bend over back and make sure publishers are happy.
It is not the days of NES where Nintendo could muscle publishers. Today platform owners are in the weak spot, there are several alternatives for publishers. Apple, google play, Onlive, Amazon, Steam...
I think the service pricing needs to approximate or beat what would happen if you bought the game and then sold it back to the store. My wife will often buy an RPG for, say, 6,800 yen, beat it and then sell it back to a store for maybe 5,500 yen after a couple of weeks, so she's effectively rented a new release for about 1,300 yen (13 bucks) for a fortnight.
I can see this working for people who migrated from 360 and want to play the uncharted series before 4 comes out, if they can rent each title for say $5 for a week each. Plenty of time to beat them.
But the long-term rentals, like a month, hard to justify compared to what the full second-hand game would cost.
I can see this working for people who migrated from 360 and want to play the uncharted series before 4 comes out, if they can rent each title for say $5 for a week each. Plenty of time to beat them.
But the long-term rentals, like a month, hard to justify compared to what the full second-hand game would cost.
Sure but surely the price to host the game wouldn't be that high.
hodayathink
Member
If you bought a game and kept it for a month and sold it back, you'd be fairly lucky to only be out $20, so the week and month prices already fit your criteria. And for older games, it's even worse, because while the new price may be lower, the trade in prices for most of them is effectively nothing (i.e. less than $10).
Who knows.
Worst case, they have to dedicate a full server (or a full PS3?) to run the game.
Best case may not be much better.
When streaming movies, the server is mostly serving a file, so each server can handle several clients.
IAmRandom31
Banned
The $4.99 for 5 hours thing makes no sense whatsoever but $7 for 7 days is right in line with what I was hoping for.
Getting up to $30 dollars though makes no sense as you may as well just purchase the game at that point.
$15 for a month is solid too.
So overall, the first and last prices make no sense, and the middle 2 are not bad at all.
I will likely use $7 for 7 days quite often.
PS Now will be for PSX / PS2 titles as well right? And maybe PS4 also in the future?
I would love to be able to rent PS4 titles eventually digitally as Gamefly is god awful. I waited 2 months to be able to rent even MGSV and still not able to. So dropped them like a bad habit. Even emptied my queue for weeks leading up to MLB The Show, had it at top of queue. Launch day hits, and it doesn't get shipped out. Was pretty pissed. There are games from back in Feb. that are still in the Low availability, which actually means you have 0% chance of getting it. I've had the service for years and never had a low availability game ship out.
Getting up to $30 dollars though makes no sense as you may as well just purchase the game at that point.
$15 for a month is solid too.
So overall, the first and last prices make no sense, and the middle 2 are not bad at all.
I will likely use $7 for 7 days quite often.
PS Now will be for PSX / PS2 titles as well right? And maybe PS4 also in the future?
I would love to be able to rent PS4 titles eventually digitally as Gamefly is god awful. I waited 2 months to be able to rent even MGSV and still not able to. So dropped them like a bad habit. Even emptied my queue for weeks leading up to MLB The Show, had it at top of queue. Launch day hits, and it doesn't get shipped out. Was pretty pissed. There are games from back in Feb. that are still in the Low availability, which actually means you have 0% chance of getting it. I've had the service for years and never had a low availability game ship out.
Just think of folks who are holding on to PS3 just for P5. If all you need is to play 1 or 2 games a year. It is a huge cost saving.
I can trade-in my PS3 for $150 today. Just pay an extra $10 on PS Now and play any game in future. It is a amazing value. Even If I land up using PS Now for 14 games in the next 3-4 years, I still save $10.
Brad Grenz
Member
If you have a PS3, yeah, buy the game. If you only have a Vita, PS4 and/or Bravia TV the PS3 digital (or physical) price doesn't really help you. If you are going to rent it on PS Now for 90 days Sony needs to be able to provide you access to a server that whole time for as much time as you want. That's not free for them. In fact, they count on you only using it for a small fraction of the time. But letting you play as much as you can for 90 days is way more expensive to provide than one PSN download which is why there is a cross-over point and a "sweet spot" for these rental prices.
I assume the 4 hour (in real time) rentals are for situations where you might have friends over and just want to check something out for an evening. The 3 and 7 day rentals will be what most people actually use and those prices seem pretty fair. Long term pricing is for bigger games but it may be for some people it makes more sense to do multiple, shorter term rentals if you know your ability to play will be sporadic.
I'm really interested to see what the subscription service looks like. I think it could be a combination of a much bigger Instant Game Collection plus streaming access for PSN purchases to all your devices. That may be more what people here are interested in, but that's not an indictment of the rental pricing.
I agree, and PS Now will be all older titles. For single-player experiences I think the one week rental is viable due to the convenience and the fact that you can complete the game in that time if you're in to it, and haven't lost that much if you're not. But these older games need to be competitive with actual rentals and the used game market.
Killing_Joke
Member
Exactly! Good posts. Everyone is treating this as a simple BC solution for PS3/4 when it's much more than that. It's costing rebox/gamefly practically nothing shipping/storing the games. Compared to Sony streaming full 10-40GB games. Shit ain't cheap.
I think the 4hr/90day rentals are dumb but i get why they have it. Wasn't there a thread where trophies showed a shit ton of people didn't even finish the game? Here's an example http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=726928
We laugh at that stupid 4hr rental but it wouldn't surprise me at all some people go for it.
^This
Spectrasonic
Member
Just because Sony took the expensive route (for them) for BC doesn't justify the price to the consumer. The average consumer is probably oblivious or just doesn't care about the technology used to deliver the game. All they care about is the price.
I was in the program last month and everything was free, but I never used it because all the games were shit. Now they've got some good stuff and apparently to "test" the service I have to pay these incredibly stupid prices. Maybe I'm just being a shitty entitled gamer, but I think If I owned Lumines Supernova on PS3, I should be able to stream it free or at the very least get a significant rental reduction, or better yet a cheap option to unlock unlimited play.
At these prices with the amount of controller lag, this service will deservedly flop. What a ripoff.
At these prices with the amount of controller lag, this service will deservedly flop. What a ripoff.
This is about way more than just streaming old games to your PS4/3. It covers tons of other devices... TV's Tablets etc. In the future there is a possibility (though remote due to the crappy internet infrastructure in the US) that the PS5 (more likely 6) won't even be a console you "buy". You will just connect to Sony's service and stream the games to whatever TV/Computer/Tablet etc that you have in your house. The upfront costs will be next to nil, however the "ownership" will be completely removed from the equation.
hodayathink
Member
Except that I don't think it'll be all older titles (well, outside of the fact that it's currently limited to PS3 titles). As long as the whole thing is in beta, I think it doesn't make sense to try to negotiate for the newest titles, because they aren't really necessary in terms of testing the whole thing. The games they announced at E3 as being in the public beta are newer than all of the games I've heard about being in the program right now, and I believe that once it comes out of beta, you'll start getting newer games, if not getting games day 1.
Yeah, and will those games be even more expensive? $40 for 3 months of GoW:A, Last of Us or Beyond.
Brad Grenz
Member
You don't need 3 months to beat any of those games. Even if it's like $15 for a week that's a decent deal for someone without access to a PS3.
I can't imagine how the market would accept that. I mean GoW:A is under $20 on Amazon, and TLOU PS3 is already under $30. I get that you're basically renting PS3 time along with the actual game content, but would people actually pay above the to-own purchase price?
hodayathink
Member
I think the highest prices you're seeing on the service right now are probably going to be the highest prices you see on any game, no matter how new it is (which would make sense with this being a beta). I don't think the fact that the games are newer are going to make them inherently more expensive than these beta prices.
Nothing should be over $15. If publishers don't want to canabalize their retail sales than don't put the game on the service.
I would be interested to see if they could possibly revive some dead online communities from this through special deals. Like what if Anarchy Reigns for example had a special PS Now sale and for $2 you could play it all week.
I would be interested to see if they could possibly revive some dead online communities from this through special deals. Like what if Anarchy Reigns for example had a special PS Now sale and for $2 you could play it all week.
Blackage
Member
Honestly I'd like them to go with a model where if the game costs $20 or more digitally, and you spend that much renting and re-renting the game you automatically acquire the digital copy.
So for example let's say you want to try FFXIII, it's $20 on PSN, and rental is 6.99 for a week, you rent it for a week, don't beat it, rent it again for 6.99 and do beat it, then you have the option to buy and replay the game again for the remaining difference of $6.02 or if you tried to rent it again a 3rd time the system informs you of the difference and gives you a digital copy that you outright own.
Or just in general, if you rent a copy of a game, and decide you like it, you can pay the difference(Whatever you spent renting it now goes to the digital copy) and own it digitally after you pass it's digital value threshold.
So for example let's say you want to try FFXIII, it's $20 on PSN, and rental is 6.99 for a week, you rent it for a week, don't beat it, rent it again for 6.99 and do beat it, then you have the option to buy and replay the game again for the remaining difference of $6.02 or if you tried to rent it again a 3rd time the system informs you of the difference and gives you a digital copy that you outright own.
Or just in general, if you rent a copy of a game, and decide you like it, you can pay the difference(Whatever you spent renting it now goes to the digital copy) and own it digitally after you pass it's digital value threshold.
Here is a suggestion to satisfy both groups.
- Keep the $30/90 day option -- for Bravia TV folks who only play 1 or 2 games a yr.
- Introduce a "PSNow+" service where people can pay $60/yr and get 30% discount on all PSNow purchases. -- For guys who are looking for BC option on PS4, and tend to play a lot of games.
That way people who just have Bravia TV and just want to play Madden or NBA during play offs can enjoy PS3 games without needing to spend $250. I know lot of people, who just play Madden, NCAA on their consoles and nothing else.
- Keep the $30/90 day option -- for Bravia TV folks who only play 1 or 2 games a yr.
- Introduce a "PSNow+" service where people can pay $60/yr and get 30% discount on all PSNow purchases. -- For guys who are looking for BC option on PS4, and tend to play a lot of games.
That way people who just have Bravia TV and just want to play Madden or NBA during play offs can enjoy PS3 games without needing to spend $250. I know lot of people, who just play Madden, NCAA on their consoles and nothing else.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
I wonder how much bandwidth this takes for a 4 hour streaming.
The problem with that model is that after owning the digital copy you have no native platform on which to play it. You always need to access it via the PS NOW service and part of their cost structure is providing the infrastructure that streams the game to you.
OldKingDoran
Banned
you can find used copies of ff13-2 for like $8.
Mr. Enigma
Member
Quality post, except for the fact Sony doesn't set the prices. Publishers do.
Caayn
Member
An amazing value? I concur. You go from the ability to play all your games for as long as you want to, to a time limit for each game depending on how much your willing to spend (again) on that game. And apparently you also get lesser graphics compared to when you run it on your own PS3 (going from CLBridges post). I wouldn't call that amazing value, rather bad value. On top of any added inputlag due to the internet. Yes it may be low but it's there, Sony can't defy the laws of physics. And streaming games will eat away at your bandwidth, not really that attractive for the millions of people who are still tied to a download limit.
For current PS3 owners PS Now holds no value, I don't see how. Which is going to be a major problem for Sony.
If the 5mbit is required... little less than 9 gigs.
And PS4/HDTV/Vita/Tablet/PC user who wants to play that FF13-2 will need to spend $200+ to get a PS3 so that he would be able to play that $8 disc.
Blackage
Member
Yes and No. It's true that you'd have no native platform, and yes, part of the cost structure is providing rentals for those servers, BUT I think ultimately the service would bring in more money if they allowed you to purchase games and the rental side was just a gateway to that.
Think about Steam for a second, how many people have libraries of hundreds of games they don't play or never played again after the first playthrough, even if somebody does buy 100 games and wants to stream them fairly regularly, he'll never actually stream those 100 games to a degree that would "beat the system", and if he did, he'd be an outliner to your average customer. The other outliner would be that guy that buys 1 game and never buys anything else and streams his 1 game he bought for the next 5 years, again I think that's more of an outliner then the norm, and if your delivery system/experience is good, people will buy things for it.
Most customers that actually buy digital and aren't terrified of the model like that peace of mind knowing they can return to said product at any time. I think an overpriced rental service for digital content is more damaging to the overall digital brand in general unless you give it some sort of attractive angle, and if they don't make it attractive at launch, it'll never catch on and will be a failure.
That being said, I don't fully understand game-streaming tech, or how much it costs to upkeep it, or if it's possible to sell games through such a service and keep it running smoothly, I'm not on Sony's Gaikai team, I just envision something a little different when I look at the service.
Ya know how we all ridiculed Microsoft for its DRM bullshit at the start of this generation, why do I get the feeling Sony is setting us up for something similar next gen which they are phasing in this generation to appear less intrusive.
I won't be surprised if there is no PS5 and they just release a streaming box and we are forced to pay these absurd prices.