Playstation Now

Discussion in 'Gaming' started by Bryan^H, Aug 20, 2014.

  1. Bryan^H

    Bryan^H Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    755
    I guess I'm not surprised. Streaming game service for the PS4 -Playstation Now-is about all the "backward compatibility" we are going to get. First things first. I will never use this service. Ever. To play classic games from the early days of Playstation to fairly recent games as a streaming rental is not my idea of progress. I love Resident Evil: Code Veronica, and I own it for the Sega Dreamcast, and bought it again for the PS2. On PSNow, I can rent it from $2.99 for four hours, up to 90 days for $14.99. No thanks. I will support the PS4 for all the upcoming games I want to own, not rent. My classic games it seems will be played on their designated systems.
     
  2. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    92
    Bryan - with the specific example of RE: CVX, it's actually an HD re-release. It's not quite the original DC or PS2 game. There are actually no PS1 or PS2 games on PSNow as of yet, though rumor has it that a PS1/PS2 emulator app is coming for PS4 that will allow PS4 to play those games right off discs.

    The crazy thing is that taken in general terms, PSNow is not really that expensive. You can pay like $5 to rent a movie for 24 hours on-demand through your cable box, but people flip out when Sony has the gall to ask for, in some cases, something like $5 for a week of play time. The issue is looking at games as a product (box, digital, whichever) or as a service. PSNow treats them as a service. Yes, you can go buy some games on PS3 for the same or less than the PS Now 90-day prices, but that requires having a PS3, which a sizable chunk of PS4 owners don't have. Additionally, say you want to try a game and there's no demo available, you could pay a few bucks, play the first few hours of a game, and decide you do or don't like it. It's the same as buying the first 2 episodes of a show on Amazon but not buying the rest of the season.Games are still treated differently from movies and TV shows for some reason. Personally, I agree that the PS Now pricing isn't that great, but I also have my PS3 (and PS2 and PS1 and so on) so I don't NEED to use it. However, if the PS4 was the ONLY gaming system I ever bought, I didn't care about owning games, and I was able to finish a game in 30 days or less, then PS Now is not a terrible option. Arguably, it's like a more instant version of GameFly, minus mail issues, games not being in stock for a long period of time, and no option to keep your game if you like it.

    My friend's soon-to-be father-in-law loves gaming. He has an Xbox One, PS4, Xbox 360, PS3, and a PC. He uses GameFly. He pays $15/month, regardless of how fast or slow he finished games (he's retired, so its pretty fast), and he kind of hates the issues that come with it. He would be the ideal candidate for something like PS Now.
     
  3. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    92
    Also, I just want to throw out the irony of a bunch of people complaining about $15 to play a game for 90 days on their $400 machines sitting in their multi-$1000s of dollars HT rigs. I mean...it's just a few bucks.
     
  4. Carl Johnson

    Carl Johnson Cinematographer
    Supporter

    Joined:
    May 6, 1999
    Messages:
    2,259
    Likes Received:
    23
    Real Name:
    Carl III
    I don't have a problem with the concept of paying to download games, but $15 for 90 days is not an appealing price point. For $15 I expect to keep it permanently.I've downloaded multiple classic titles for my Xbox, each of which has been $15 or less and none of them came with an expiration date.
     
  5. Bryan^H

    Bryan^H Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    755
    If that happens, PS4 will be my favorite system.

    I have never been much for rentals, especially, and most importantly video games(If I'm [playing it, I own it). That is the main reason I'm so sour on PSNow. It just isn't my thing.
     
  6. LeoA

    LeoA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    606
    Location:
    North Country
    Real Name:
    Leo
    Not my idea of progress, but even if it worked well which I remain very skeptical of, I think bandwidth caps and their price points will keep it from being embraced.

    It's the PS3 version. As far as I know, all Playstation Now releases so far are PS3 games.
     
  7. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    92
    I'm not a big fan of rentals, either. But then again...I'm not the target PS Now audience, now am I?

    The reason for the crazy pricing and it being rental-only is because the streaming service continuously costs money and needs to be paid for as it is used. They can't charge $15, let you keep the game, and then have the service turned on forever just so you can play it. The idea of paying one price one time to own a game through a streaming service also begs the question of what would happen if they turn the service off. To skirt that, it is a rental system.What will be really cool is when they let you buy a PS4 game, it downloads in the background, but you start playing immediately on PS Now.

    LeoA - you'd be surprised at how well the system works. I was in the closed beta and tried it out. Not perfect and only stereo sound, but it was surprisingly great.
    Carl - the PS4 is incapable of playing PS3 games, so paying to download and own is not an option. PS Now is an attempt to let gamers play PS3 games on their PS4 and get around the issue.
     
  8. Russell G

    Russell G Fake Shemp
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,211
    Likes Received:
    569
    Location:
    Deadmonton
    Real Name:
    Russell
    I think the $15 price point is too high as well. i totally see where you're coming from Morgan, and I don't disagree with you. It just seems expensive. It would be much more appealing if it was an extra $10 or $15 per month spread out on your PS+ subscription, and you could play any game, anytime you want to.

    Which is what I thought it was going to be when they were talking about a "Netflix for games" prior to the launch. this variation just seems limited.

    Then again, I'm still waiting for PS3 style media support before buying a PS4 ha ha.
     
  9. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    20,940
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    I am not as hyped on the actual in use experience as Morgan was and I too was in the free beta.It was laggy, ugly and meh at best, I didn't and wouldn't put much time on it if it were free.
     
  10. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    92
    I thought the performance of the service was surprisingly great. The only glaring issue was the lack of surround sound. Even input lag was more than tolerable.

    That said, I only used it BECAUSE it was free. I'm not hyped on the experience for myself but rather for the possibilities for Sony to share this stuff with people who didn't own a PS3. A good chunk of PS4 owners did not own a PS3 so they can only play PS3 games through PS Now. I agree that it would be great if they could offer games in a $10/month-gives-you-everything system but we can all kind of understand why that won't happen. The closest would be something like EA Access but with streamed games and for each company or in certain bundles.If you think about it, how often do you go back to a game after you've completed it? I'm talking about a game like, say, Tomb Raider or Assassin's Creed. Great games, totally worth playing, but after a month or so you probably won't touch them again. So why pay $15 for a used or old copy for PS3 when you can pay like $10 to get it instantly on your PS4? You're not paying for the product but rather the experience. The argument against PS Now is similar to one against going to the movies; you don't get to walk away with a copy of the movie to watch again and again, so why would you pay the same price (we'll say $25 for 2 tickets vs. $25 for a bluray) for just a singular experience?The bigger issue for me, looking at PS Now, is the fact that some games will never ever be on the service, like Rock Band, and no DLC content will ever be supported. If they can somehow give you the "Game of the Year" versions of games then that would be awesome.I also think that this tech is going to be the foundation for letting people play PS5+ games on PS4 or other devices. The PS4 already uses the same streaming tech to play games on Vita, so I can see Sony selling games as services (if people want that; you could also just buy a PS5) down the line. Imagine all you need is a controller, SOE account, and a Bravia TV in order to play the latest games on demand at a moment's notice. Should they implement the supposed cloud TV/DVR service they're working on, we're looking at some awesome stuff.
     
  11. LeoA

    LeoA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    606
    Location:
    North Country
    Real Name:
    Leo
    It all depends on your connection, which is one of the problems here.
     
  12. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    20,940
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    I have folios 50/35 and it was still shitty. There's a LOT more than just your own ISP at play. CDNs, Sony's network, ISPs and more.
     
  13. Sam Posten

    Sam Posten Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 1997
    Messages:
    20,940
    Likes Received:
    1,897
    Location:
    Aberdeen, MD & Navesink, NJ
    Real Name:
    Sam Posten
    LeoA likes this.
  14. Bryan^H

    Bryan^H Producer

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,751
    Likes Received:
    755
    See, that is what I'm talking about. I own a lot of PS3 games. Actually all the games I wanted to play on that system, I own. I guess it is great for a casual gamer, or someone that never owned a PS3, but it is punishment for those hardcore gamers that supported them all along. No option of playing the PS3 discs if you already own it, Once the PS3 isn't manufactured anymore, and your system dies, then you will be forced to use that service, and "PAY TO PLAY".
    Thank god The WiiU is backward compatible for all my Wii games.
     
  15. Russell G

    Russell G Fake Shemp
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,211
    Likes Received:
    569
    Location:
    Deadmonton
    Real Name:
    Russell
    That sub price is bonkers, especially when you consider what Bryan posted. I supported the PS3 and own the game, but to play it on my new PS$ I have to pay $20 a month. And that's on top of a PS+ sub most of us have?

    $20 a month if you're not a PS+ subscriber, fine. Expensive but I guess you get what you pay for if you really want it. It's still allows you to try more games at a better price than individual rentals. If you have a PS+ sub though, it shouldn't be more than $5 extra a month.

    I mean, a bunch of those titles were given away free on the PS+ for the PS3, and would show in our history if we "bought" the free downloads. Billing us $20 seems even more of a raking.
     
    Bryan^H likes this.
  16. Russell G

    Russell G Fake Shemp
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,211
    Likes Received:
    569
    Location:
    Deadmonton
    Real Name:
    Russell
    That the PS4 wasn't backward compatible for games purchased on the PSN was already dopey. They could of had PSN as a platform like Steam and license to non-sony companies. Who wants to re-buy their song catalogues for something like Rockband if a PS4 version comes out?

    (I'll stop complaining now. :P )
     
  17. Aaron Silverman

    Aaron Silverman Executive Producer

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 1999
    Messages:
    10,759
    Likes Received:
    576
    Location:
    Florida
    Real Name:
    Aaron Silverman
    It's possible that a PS4 edition of Rockband could load the songs off a PS3 disc. The PS3 SingStar games can play songs off of PS2 SingStar discs (not only on the old backward-compatible models).
     
  18. Ejanss

    Ejanss Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2012
    Messages:
    2,452
    Likes Received:
    376
    Real Name:
    EricJ
    It's also the same complaint against streaming: Putting it at the center of their industry automatically assumes that everyone who owns a console has a magical-limitless ultra-high-speed connection to support it.
    I don't (just an average Netflix-sized connection), and haven't used the service yet, because their automatic screening of connection speeds tells me I couldn't even if I wanted to.

    Frankly, if there is a PS5--and not Sony simply throwing themselves on the dying-disk movement and saying "Oh well, that's it for consoles"--it's going to be an "apology" for the PS4, and I'm not being sarcastic:
    The focus on streaming games and online communities cut Sony's own throat where disk sales were concerned, the attack downtime emphasized the weaknesses of not having offline capabilities, and the home-theater users which became the core of PS3 complained about not having full Blu-ray capabilities, since the developers were so obsessed with its game tech. Even though it sold on day one, this is otherwise starting to rack up all the earmarks of one of those great "Console failures" that everyone tries to explain ten years later, like the Saturn or Dreamcast.
    I was worried that upgrading some time in the next year meant I'd have to switch to PS3 Network games now instead of disks to avoid the disk BC problem (I still haven't gotten that Kingdom Hearts 2.5 yet!), but now if that's not a solution either, they're making it really, really TOUGH for me to come up with an excuse to upgrade.

    I was willing to give them a chance, but now I'm making sure my PS3 lives forever.
     
  19. LeoA

    LeoA Screenwriter

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,890
    Likes Received:
    606
    Location:
    North Country
    Real Name:
    Leo
    I don't mind the lack of PS3 compatibility thanks to the change in system architecture that made it impractical.

    But I find the lack of PS/PS2 compatibility on this powerful system a great disappointment. Its absence isn't a surprise mind you, but still a disappointment.

    Particularly since it would've benefited those libraries so much on today's televisions by rendering this software in HD and applying various post processing effects.
     
  20. Morgan Jolley

    Morgan Jolley Lead Actor

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2000
    Messages:
    8,572
    Likes Received:
    92
    I think the $20/month or $45/3-month plan prices are actually pretty spot on and perfect. They are comparable to the industry standard for streaming game services on PC and make the prices of playing individual PS Now games look ridiculous. Seriously, some PSNow games are lke $20-30 to play for 30 days, so paying the same price or less for UNLIMITED play of ALL games is a huge deal. It would have been nice to see a discount for PS+ subscribers and maybe that will still happen, but I still think this pricing structure is good.


    The PS4 is technically incapable of playing PS3 games off of discs. The same goes for PSN games that were made for PS3. Every game that has been made cross platform on PS3/4/Vita has required a not insignificant amount of work to make that happen. The only reason it is able to work is because they are effectively remaking games that are relatively simple to begin with. To make an engine that can run PS3 games on the fly, which required a completely different CPU/GPU architecture, is impossible. My point? Don't complain that the PS4 can't play PS3 games off discs because it never will and shouldn't be expected.


    The PS Now service is not meant to be a gift to hardcore Sony fans or people who have extensive libraries of games. The original point of including backward compatibility in console was to make the transition between generations easier to swallow ("I can still buy new games for both systems and play them on just one console" instead of "now my machine plays EVERYTHING") and it's not like Sony is alone in dropping it. The XB1 doesn't have it and the Wii U only goes back one generation, which is odd because the Wii's architecture was nearly the same as the GameCube's but Nintendo probably assumed people were done with the GameCube by now.


    What I find really exciting about PS Now is that you can literally have just a Dual Shock 3 (or 4) controller and a Sony or Samsung TV and then be able to play a hundred or so PS3 games through the internet instantaneously for $15/month. In the long run, you could save money by buying a PS3 and some games instead, but its still a huge deal. Throw in the fact that it works on PS Vita, too, and you have a portable PS3, something that Sony promised a long time ago and never delivered until now. Yeah, there's a premium for that ability, but realistically, what were people expecting? I mean, if you look at the economics of the situation, the cost to deliver the content, the value of the content, and the fact that Sony is a business trying to make money....what else would have happened?
     

Share This Page