• 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.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Sony Doesn't Seem to be Marketing PSNow as much as they Should

Roronoa Zoro

Member
Oct 17, 2016
2,021
1,633
575
Pittsburgh
So I got curious after hearing you could download stuff on PSNow (and apparently have been able to do so for quite awhile) and decided to compare services. Holy hell PSNow is like...WAY better than I thought it was. The library is huge compared to Gamepass and if you're not into MS first party stuff it seems PSNow has a much better selection. In fact if Sony started adding their first party stuff but only made those available a year or more after release on the service they would make the service even better. I'm still not into it as I have a big backlog without trying out a bunch of stuff just because it's in a library but to compare

Number of Games
PSNow=650
Gamepass=I didn't feel like counting every one and couldn't find an accurate count but eyeballing the list it looks like around 250

Price
PSNow=$60 a year
Gamepass=$120 a year

Notable Games that I saw
PSNow=Batman Arkham and Telltale games, Bioshock 1 and 2, Borderlands games, Castlevania Games, Darksiders 1 and 2, Dead Island games, Devil May Cry 1-4, Dishonored 1 and 2, Dynasty Warriors 6-8, FF15, GoW 1-Ascension, Gravity Rush 1 and 2, Horizon Zero Dawn, Heavy Rain, Beyond 2 Souls, Infamous 1 and 2 and FoB, Killzone 1-Shadowfall, 13 LEGO games, Lost Planet 1-3, Mafia 2 and 3, MGS 2-5, Shadow of War and Mordor, Read Dead Redemption and Undead Nightmare, Rainbow Six Siege, Ratchet and Clank PS3 games except for ToD, Red Faction games, bunch of Resident Evil games, Resistance 3, Resogun, Saints Row 2 and 4, Shadow of the Colossus, Silent Hill Collection, Sly Cooper 1-4, Street Fighter 5, Elder Scrolls 4, Last of Us and Left Behind, Uncharted 1-3, Until Dawn, New Wolfenstein games

Gamepass=Ace Combat 7, Alan Wake, Banjo Kazooie games, Arkham Knight, Borderlands 2 and pre sequel, Darksiders 3, Dead Island, Deus Ex, Destiny 2, DMC5, Doom Eternal, Fable 2 and 3, FF7 9 and 15, latest Forza games, All Gears games, Halo games, Killer Instinct, Kingdom Hearts games, LEGO star wars 3, Mass effect, MGS 2 3 and 5, Shadow of War, Monster Hunter World, Mortal Kombat X, Rage 2, Red Dead 2, RE7, Sunset Overdrive, Man of Medan, Outer Worlds, Witcher 3, TWD season 1-3, New Wolfenstein minus 2, Yooka Laylee

So am I missing something? Like those are the ones I think are actually big games on there (ok some of it is my taste and there's too many to list) and some series DMC and LEGO have WAY more games on PSNow. I don't get how people are so obsessed with Gamepass when it seems cheaper and more plentiful on PSNow. I won't sub to either but actually looking at the lists for the first time in awhile I'm shocked at how much PSNow is offering because I've had Gamepass pushed as the gaming godsend every thread about next gen. Well...I fail to see that it's a game changer unless you were already a huge Halo and Gears fan. Like sure there's some more recent stuff but the sheer volume of games and QUALITY games is AT LEAST equal if not better on PSNow from what I see.

Why doesn't Jim Ryan bring this up? Why doesn't Sony push this more? Furthermore, why don't they SLIGHTLY improve it to make it make an even bigger splash like throwing Spidey or GoW on there after a year or 18 months on store shelves when they've had most of their sales already and are heavily discounted physically anyway?
 

dano1

Member
Sep 25, 2013
2,057
679
640
Agreed!! For $10 dollars a month you have PS plus and PlayStation Now. Not sure what Sonys waiting for. Just Bundle them and call it game pass plus!
 

Roronoa Zoro

Member
Oct 17, 2016
2,021
1,633
575
Pittsburgh
It a inferior service to Gamepass and it day 1 games, Sony best not waste money on it anymore PSNow cannot catch up to Gamepass unless they put first party and also timed exclusive 3rd party games on it day 1 like Xbox is doing with Gamepass.
again...if you care about Xbox first party games. The number of games overall and third party games I think PSNow has the advantage. Also why not just get the initial sales in and then 18 months later put them on Now. The games aren't going anywhere. It's still ADDING games just later.
 

Arkam

Member
Jan 21, 2012
4,585
4,277
840
Here, Now and maybe later
It definitely feels like Sony is actively NOT promoting (and possibly evolving) the service. I am flabbergasted that there is not a PS+ & PSNow combo sub with a minor savings. Just seems so obvious and low friction. And with them adding Collections it muddies the waters even more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kumomeme

MrS

Member
Apr 6, 2014
9,648
8,882
710
North East, England
Probably because it can't compete with GP in terms of value and the quality of games on it? Until it's rolled in to PS+, I don't want to hear about it. It's a woeful service.
 
Apr 19, 2020
1,628
5,000
655
Worldwide
again...if you care about Xbox first party games. The number of games overall and third party games I think PSNow has the advantage. Also why not just get the initial sales in and then 18 months later put them on Now. The games aren't going anywhere. It's still ADDING games just later.
I care more now since they bought a bunch of studios and have said all future games from those studios will come to gamepass day 1 and aren't all of PS3 games stream only on PSNow it quality over quantity.
 

TeKtheSanE

Member
Aug 25, 2018
428
657
490
A Place
It's actually on PC too if you didn't know, but it's 100% streaming on there. If this service offered downloads on PC like gamepass does I'd be all over it (even though I already have a subscription to it)

My issue with the service is I think it doesn't stream 1080p and does 720p, they said it is going to be upped to 1080p but I haven't seen any news on it in a while now.
 

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
14,709
5,420
1,255
Because it sucks to use. Have you tried it?


If you could download the games, it's could easily compete, but playing that shit over the internet blows donkey dicks.

In summary:

Shitty performance and not day and date 1st party releases.
 
Last edited:
  • LOL
Reactions: BasedPrime

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
14,709
5,420
1,255
Says who? Screw PS Now. Just make great games and sell them. I don't want the future where I need 12 different subscriptions to play the games I want to play.



You can.
They should work on their marketing then. I like Gamepass because I can play games both on my PC and XbX. Can't play PS games on my PC, at least on local hardware, so I just don't care about it as a service. I'd be super on board just like gamepass though if I could pay $10-15 a month and get all 1st party games day 1 and play them on my PC.
 
Last edited:

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
14,709
5,420
1,255
do you have an ethernet cord? I tried a free trial awhile ago and it worked fine for me.
I am hardwired in with 300Mb/80Mb down and up. I have no tolerance for how shitty it is to play 30fps games over the internet. I don't like any streaming game service. They all suck ass.
 
Last edited:

Hendrick's

Member
Jan 7, 2014
8,484
13,924
995
They already said they aren't putting new 1st party games on it, so it's pretty much a dying service.
 

tmlDan

Member
May 30, 2017
119
222
280
I am hardwired in with 300Mb/80Mb down and up. I have no tolerance for how shitty it is to play 30fps games over the internet. I don't like any streaming game service. They all suck ass.
they don't suck ass, it actually works perfectly for me but I also have 1gbs/200mb up on mine
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

angrod14

Member
Jun 18, 2020
93
210
230
I fear all these subscription models will eventually destroy AAA gaming. Games in this category have already been perverted in the since the past decade by being filled with DLCs and micro transactions. I mean, have you seen the number of additional paying content MS exclusives have? It's pretty ridiculous, Forza and Gears are bloated with them.

Developing a major AAA title for years and then releasing it through Gamepass where you have all these people paying freaking 1 dollar just can't be sustainable. Why do you think RDR2 and GTA V barely lasted a few months there?

I hope these services remain in the sidewalk and don't become the norm, because if they do then you better get ready for a major industry decline in both quality and production values, and it will only get worse over time.
 
Last edited:

MarkMe2525

Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,190
1,462
445
35
I think it's because they don't own their own cloud. The more people that use PSnow, the more expensive it is for Sony. Just a guess though.

Edit: I'm referring to the streaming aspect of it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

Roronoa Zoro

Member
Oct 17, 2016
2,021
1,633
575
Pittsburgh
They already said they aren't putting new 1st party games on it, so it's pretty much a dying service.
If they do what I suggest (everything 18 months or old that's first party gets put on it giving all those games plenty of time to sell like a home video release after a theatrical run for movies and the games will be $20 by then like they are now) that would mean Spiderman, Bloodborne, GoW, Uncharted 4, etc. on PSNow. Would that not be enough extra incentive? I think Sony games are more valuable as their sales have proven despite being the more expensive or equally expensive option the majority of this gen.
 
Sep 7, 2015
712
425
410
I fear all these subscription models will eventually destroy AAA gaming. Games in this category have already been perverted in the since the past decade by being filled with DLCs and micro transactions. I mean, have you seen the number of additional paying content MS exclusives have? It's pretty ridiculous, Forza and Gears are bloated with them.

Developing a major AAA title for years and then releasing it through Gamepass where you have all these people paying freaking 1 dollar just can't be sustainable. Why do you think RDR2 and GTA V barely lasted a few months there?

I hope these services remain in the sidewalk and don't become the norm, because if they do then you better get ready for a major industry decline in both quality and production values, and it will only get worse over time.

This is true. My other worry is that all major 3rd parties start creating their own subscription service. EA already has theirs that let's you play their games on release date. You add Ubi, Acti, Take 2, Square, etc and if they decide to make games exclusive to the service (or jack up sales prices like we are seeing now) and suddenly you have to sub to a many different services to play new games, and stay subbed to have access to them long term.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

Krappadizzle

Member
Oct 4, 2011
14,709
5,420
1,255
You can download the games.
You can download games....
and Bloodbourne too
O really? I can download and play them locally on my PC too?

 

Roronoa Zoro

Member
Oct 17, 2016
2,021
1,633
575
Pittsburgh
It's my very next post after the one you quote. It's like some of you were so quick to just see my error, jump into a frenzy defending a shitty service and stopped reading any more of the thread.
It's shitty just because PC players can't download? That's a very specific thing on a specific platform to just denounce the entire service and disregard the price difference and its enormous library.
 

Agent X

Member
Jun 7, 2004
7,777
787
1,690
New Jersey
I fear all these subscription models will eventually destroy AAA gaming. Games in this category have already been perverted in the since the past decade by being filled with DLCs and micro transactions.

I hear you, and I understand why there's some trepidation about video game subscription services.

I have my own vision of how I'd like to see this type of service evolve, and it's probably quite different from many other people's vision of video game subscription services. I believe there is a way to make a subscription service very appealing, where it would be affordable and sustainable and fair to consumers and developers alike. It can be done without devaluing games or reducing formerly "AAA franchises" to hollowed-out empty shells begging for microtransactions up the wazoo.

If they do what I suggest (everything 18 months or old that's first party gets put on it giving all those games plenty of time to sell like a home video release after a theatrical run for movies and the games will be $20 by then like they are now) that would mean Spiderman, Bloodborne, GoW, Uncharted 4, etc. on PSNow. Would that not be enough extra incentive? I think Sony games are more valuable as their sales have proven despite being the more expensive or equally expensive option the majority of this gen.

I agree. That would give a good window for games to rack up sales at full price (which would also please retailers), and then the games could get added to PS Now once the sales start to decline.

I think the window could be a little lower--6 to 12 months would be good, to me. I actually posted this on another forum a few months ago:

Sony should define some moment where their first-party games will get added to PS Now. If it's not the day or release, then make it 6 months later, or 12 months later, or even 24 months later...just declare some period, so that potential customers can plan their purchasing habits around it.

Let's say for example that Sony says that games will get added 6 months later. That means that when a hot new game is released, the customer can decide:
  • Should I buy the game for full price now?
  • Or, do I wait 6 months for it to become available on PS Now?
That's all. It's very simple decision.

That time period has to be well-defined, and Sony needs to stick to that schedule without any significant deviation (any more than a few days in either direction). If a certain game doesn't sell well, then they can't suddenly decide to put that game up only 4 months after release, because then that sets a precedent that people might expect the next big game to get posted up early, so they avoid buying that game, figuring it will also go up early. Likewise, if it sells better than expected, they can't decide to wait until 8 months later, because then people will lose faith in the PS Now program.

If they declare a schedule, and stick to it for all of their first-party releases, then their customers can make their purchases (of either the individual game, or the PS Now service) with confidence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

Agent X

Member
Jun 7, 2004
7,777
787
1,690
New Jersey
They should merge Plus and PS Now somehow, with an altered business model.

I disagree. The two services are already relatively inexpensive, being only $60 a year for either one alone. Merging them into a single service would mean they'd have to charge more than $60/year for the combination. This would be fine for people who subscribe to both (like me), but would surely anger people who previously only were interested in one of the services and not the other.

Instead, Sony should keep the PS Plus and PS Now services separate at $60/year, but provide a discounted bundle price (such as $100/year) for people who want both. To sweeten the deal, they could also provide additional perks for people who have both services.
 

Azurro

Member
Jun 11, 2018
1,894
3,270
420
again...if you care about Xbox first party games. The number of games overall and third party games I think PSNow has the advantage. Also why not just get the initial sales in and then 18 months later put them on Now. The games aren't going anywhere. It's still ADDING games just later.

It's because Sony makes a shitload of money off the traditional model, PSNow is set up as an alternate revenue stream, and mostly as something they can put out there in case the market shifts.

MS meanwhile already knows they won't ever sell anywhere close to what Sony does and have decided to dump money into Gamepass to try to shift the market around. It's their only "win" in that they are able to have a lot of their hardcore fans on it, but it's also a money sink if they can't get to those mythical 100 million+ subscribers, at which point they may make money or not.
 

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
979
500
1,300
O really? I can download and play them locally on my PC too?


Doesn't make your original statement anymore true by pointing out PC isn't included for downloads. You are accusing us of omitting the PC while you conveniently omitted the fact that you can download on the PS4. You want us to be clear in our statements yet you weren't with yours.

I guess my original response to you should have been as immature as yours is by saying:

"O really? I can't download and play games locally on my PS4?"

[Insert gif here]
 
Last edited:
Aug 28, 2019
8,240
11,992
840
I think they're waiting to see how well Gamepass sells XBOX consoles, seeing which way the wind blows. If they feel they need to revamp PSNow and make it a focus I'm sure they will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roronoa Zoro

Gamerguy84

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,476
2,522
380
Instead, Sony should keep the PS Plus and PS Now services separate at $60/year, but provide a discounted bundle price (such as $100/year) for people who want both. To sweeten the deal, they could also provide additional perks for people who have both services.

That would be an amazing price. Ive subbed to PS+ for years and PSNOW for close to a year now.

IMO NOW is a very good service, ive downloaded many titles and streamed complete games through it.
 
Last edited:

TheBiztorian

Neo Member
Aug 12, 2020
6
17
100
It even supports PS2 games as a download. I agree with OP. Sony should attack with this, it had a crappy launch but seems up to par now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamerguy84

leo-j

Member
Jun 27, 2018
634
809
350
Should increase ps plus to $69.99 and include ps now. Boom.
People would pay $69.99 a year for ps plus.
They basically added ps now w the best games on ps now part of the ps plus collection for ps5.

Also yes it’s super under marketed.

ps now has 900 games.... and all ps2/ps4 games came be downloaded and or streamed.

it is also $5 a month for the yearly.

I think since they sell 10 million + copies of first party, compared to half or less from Microsoft games, it makes less sense for them as a business model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamerguy84

sainraja

Member
Aug 15, 2007
979
500
1,300
It's because Sony makes a shitload of money off the traditional model, PSNow is set up as an alternate revenue stream, and mostly as something they can put out there in case the market shifts.

MS meanwhile already knows they won't ever sell anywhere close to what Sony does and have decided to dump money into Gamepass to try to shift the market around. It's their only "win" in that they are able to have a lot of their hardcore fans on it, but it's also a money sink if they can't get to those mythical 100 million+ subscribers, at which point they may make money or not.

Yeah, I think this makes sense. Those are good points - Microsoft is definitely trying to shift the market towards that kind of model. I am not against it but I don't want it to become the only option for getting and playing games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gamerguy84

LeftThumbstick

Gold Member ~ I love GOOOLD!
Jun 21, 2020
985
2,580
575
again...if you care about Xbox first party games. The number of games overall and third party games I think PSNow has the advantage. Also why not just get the initial sales in and then 18 months later put them on Now. The games aren't going anywhere. It's still ADDING games just later.

It appears that 15+ million people currently do like MS first party and the offering of Gamepass quite clearly and that number is rapidly growing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarkMage619

turtlepowa

Member
Mar 27, 2020
1,975
2,987
405
They can't compete with the Game Pass Ultimate. All first parties day one, all timed exclusives day one, EA, gaming on smartphones, tablets and so on via xCloud , downloadable Pc games, downloadable XB games, downloadable 360 games (some with big enhancements like Witcher 2), online gaming included, 4 free games per month included. Zenimax was the icing on the cake since most players love games like Doom, Wolfenstein, Skyrim, Dishonored, Fallout and so on and those games will be inlcuded day one too.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: DarkMage619

Mmnow

Member
Jun 16, 2020
721
1,124
325
The biggest concern I see about Gamepass, outside of the ridiculous notion that it'll somehow bring about the death of AAA, is that its quantity over quality. Putting value ahead of worth.

The biggest defence of PS Now I see is that its cheaper and there's more of it.

Genuinely, I think people who are suddenly saying PS Now is better than Gamepass either haven't used both (or either) service or mostly ignored it until Microsoft started announcing it had 15m subscribers.
 

sol_bad

Member
Jan 17, 2006
5,617
3,900
1,730
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaase stop these threads. There is a new 1 every day.
Sony don't need to rely on PSNow.
Look how many PS4's have been sold. Look how many PSNow subs there are.
End of story, Sony people don't care about it.
 

longdi

Ni hao ma, fellow kids?
Jun 7, 2004
8,008
5,140
1,865
Business wise you're correct.

As a gamer that doesn't want to see these services pick up. Good.

Let Xbox players parrot Phil's push for rentals.

You know you can purchase games off GPU too, at a discount at that?

To OP, imo Sony just needs to copy GPU, because it's the future of games distribution. Of course Sony can sell their services at a little premium with PS tax.

Just like XBL, MS was the front runner when Sony was mucking around the dark until mid PS3. Lol.

This time with capital rich Google and Amazon and even Apple, fighting for the first mover pie, im worry Jim delayin Ryan may be too late
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeftThumbstick