Ben-DutkaThis is not a rhetorical question. I'd really like to know what most PlayStation 4 owners think.
PlayStation Now is basically here and everyone is debating the obvious question: Is it worth the cost?
It'll be $19.99/month or $44.99 for three months. To me, the answer is entirely dependent upon your gaming habits, and how often you'd use this service. For some, it'd be well worth it, especially considering the size of the PS3 library. For others, $20/month is just another subscription cost and one they wouldn't take enough advantage of. But this also hinges on whether or not PS4 owners are really that interested in playing older games.
Hey, don't get me wrong, I love old games every now and then. I still play PlayStation titles from every generation (PS1, PS2 and PS3), and I even have an SNES hooked up in the bedroom (which doesn't gather as much dust as you might think). I also understand that early on in a new generation, there aren't a huge amount of titles everyone wants to play. Hence, I would think something like Now would've been more effective had it launched alongside the PS4 in late 2013.
But as the generation goes on, a gamer's backlog will continue to fill with current titles and let's face it, they'll take precedence over the likes of Killzone 3 , The Last Of Us , etc. To me, it almost seems like the backwards compatibility argument: The farther you go in any given generation, the less most gamers are interested in b/c. It's just a given. And so, I wonder how PlayStation fans will respond to Now…
im with you, i have the snes hooked up as well and play at least once or twice a month. as for psnow, i really dont care to play ps3 games, i played everything i wanted to before ps4 release so as for the games i havent played are being remade for ps4. id rather have access to ps2/psx games. so once that portion goes live, then ill def consider subscription.
Well compared to the individual game prices we see now idk they r in some cases more than buying the game for the ps3 to keep instead of rent cut that price down to that of PS plus n I'd see a benefit
Using punctuation, even if you don't capitalize, will make your comments easier to read. I'm not trying to sound like an *sshole or your English teacher, it's more of a selfish, easier on my brain kinda thing more than anything else. But you don't have to hate me for saying it, if you don't want to.
It wasn't that bad to read.
This post isn't. I'm the only one that gave her a thumbs up because what she says I agree with. But I do read her comments and I have to find the break in her sentences. It's like stuttering when you have to back up and re-read wordse after you realize a new sentence started. I tried to be light-hearted about it.
I'm only interested in playing a limited number of PS3 games on my PS4. Tomb Raider: DE and the games that I bought digitally for PS3 that released on PS4.
I'll just continue to buy PS3 games for the PS3 console if I want to play them. I believe Now is a great idea for the right person, it's just not for me. I think the subscription price is a little high though.
Not me. I own or owned most of the PS3 games of want to play and I have no intention of getting rid of my PS3. It might be a nice convenience to be able to access some of those games when I'm out and about via PSVita but that isn't enough to justify $20 a month.
Last edited by Jawknee on 1/6/2015 1:21:28 AM
Imagine you break the ps3 in a year and dont want to shell out 200 bucks for another one. I can see people sign up for a month once a year to get rid of that ps3 itch once in a while. Half a year subscription is too much
It would be a hell of a lot more tempting if they gave some of the games that never made it over seas a quick translation and threw them up on Now seems like a lot less to lose than printing out tens of thousands of new Blu-ray disks and finding a publisher.
Yes.. .. …. just not on Playstation Now. I have my PS3 and PS4 (and PS2 Slim for that matter) hooked up to my HDTV. I have about 60+ games for the PS3 and I don't intend to flog them off so they will remain on my shelf through out the PS4's lifespan certainly. Mind you have been very stern over the years, making sure that my collection is tight and full of games I actually want. If I don't enjoy a game, I won't hesitate to sell it. But games like Catherine, Metal Gear Solid 4, Final Fantasy XIII, Heavy Rain I am all content with playing on PS3.
This is why the trend of PS3 games re-released on PS4 just doesn't have the same effect as HD versions of PS2 games. The PS3 is already HD and looks great, I might pick up the PS4 version of The Last of Us but I am in no hurry and will wait until its cheap.
Last edited by Vivi_Gamer on 1/6/2015 1:48:48 AM
Well, as I still have my PS3 (in fact, I got two) as well as not being a fan of retro gaming in general, I am just so totally not the target audience for this service.
On a whim I bought a PS4 just before New Year and I am still playing my PS3. I will always want to replay the Fallouts, DA 1-3 and the Assassin Creed games, though that is less so. With the hundreds of hours of gaming that gives me I will have very little time to play much on the PS4 anyway. As the library of games I have a passion for grows, I guess I might go back to my PS3 collection less and less but I expect that will not be for some time yet.
All this said, my desire for Playstation Now is non existent as all the PS3 games I want I still own.
I'm not really that big into backwards compatibility. It's nice to have, sure, but it's not a necessity. I mean, I bought a PS4 to play PS4 games. I still got my PS3 for my PS3 games. It's the reason why I don't get rid of my old consoles to begin with. So yeah, I'd say no to that question.
It's an awesome service for those who may have missed last generation or traded in their collection to get a PS4. What's on there is solid and should only get better. The price is right and it's strange to see people complaining about it. Too many people expect something for nothing. Like any hobby, you need cash to truly be a part of it and get the best out of it. This one is no different.
I think the issue is value vs. cost. How much does entertainment typically cost people? In other words, what's the $ per hour you are spending?
Lets say you have Netflix and PS Now. PS Now is $20/month and Netflix is $7. Both streaming services. I could make a strong case for PSNow if I use it 3 times as much as I use Netflix. $/hour, it's a good price.
But keep in mind, we're only talking about PS3 games. How much time are any of us going to spend on PS3 games if we own a PS4? It's easy to say we would want to spend some time with it. But still… how much?
The thing is, for some people it might make sense. But I think when compared to other entertainment media streaming, a lot of people won't see the value. On the other hand, it's also a comparable price point to gamefly/gameaccess services.
Compare to typical video game subscriptions, like MMOs, and I think you might make the most money closer to the 12-15 dollar price point.
TL:DR summary: When it's cheap, you get far more subscribers. When it's too expensive, you might get far more. At what point on that scale in between the two extremes will they make the most money? There will always be a market for this kind of thing, but I do find the $20 mark suspect on meeting the height of potential profit.
I think most other people think so, too.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/6/2015 11:14:52 AM
It's not so much that people want this for free. For me personally I just don't see the value in it given I own most of the games I would play on PS3. For some it's a great value, for others, not so much.
I think they should charge about $15.00 for unlimited play on maybe three titles a month. You don't need unlimited access to every title since you can't possibly play them all.
Underdog- I see where youre coming from but I disagree on the blanket classification of entertainment. That's like saying I should pay a comparable amount to see a movie in the theatre as going to see a play at The Hippodrome or a performance at the BSO. Some things are just worth more to different folks.
Jawknee- Yeah, man. For me, I feel weird shelling out for XBL and now PSN when I probably play MP maybe a few hours a year. But it's a blanket fee for me at a few hours and my son who probably clocks in about a thousand hours. Sucks but there not making a discount for me and others who still love SP.
Tes- but it's already 15 a month for the whole thing if you opt into the three month option.
Yeah, but like godsman said above in a reply to Jawknee, he could see someone maybe wanting to play one month in a year. What about those types of people? Are they not my gaming brethren? 🙂 I want the best for them like I want the best for me. $15.00 a month is not the same business model as you say when viewed from godman's perspective.
Sony wants peoples money, so they better get with a program that makes everyone happy and accommodated.
Sorry, I was under the assumption you knew we were talking about home entertainment.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/7/2015 1:51:44 PM
It also helps to acknowledge that I was drawing parallels to very similar styles and types of services.
What you're doing now is instead of talking about a streaming service vs. a streaming service like the rest of us, you're comparing watching the Olympics highlights on ESPN on your 17 inch tube tv versus being at the Olympic games in person.
That's not really a fair counter point, nor is it really on point to begin with.
Last edited by Underdog15 on 1/7/2015 3:22:20 PM
They want me to pay a seperate, expensive subscription to play games that i can already play for free in another room of my house. They haven't thought this through very well…
I'm still interested in playing PS3 games but not nearly as much as PS4 games. I sitll have GT6 to finish and have yet to purchase Castlevania Lords of Shadow 2.
I think most of us have plenty of bills under our belt. No need to add another bill to the list especially if full advantage won't be taken care of.
LoS2….so underrated.
I really liked the LoS2 demo and was amped to play it until it got critically blasted.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/6/2015 1:02:32 PM
I think some games touch some gamers more than others. I played part one and enjoyed the atmosphere and story. It feels only right to finish the story.
If you enjoyed it and feel like it's worth the risk of buying then go with your instincts. Life is too short.
Here's my take on critics and LoS2:
End of LoS : Dracula in the future? Awesome!
LoS2: Dracula in the future? This sucks!
Ok there's a bit more to the reviews but that seemed to be the sticking point for most people. And the stealth portions which, honestly, are few and can be completed in a few minute each.
The game is awesome to me. Mercury Steam did good by the series and lore. Varied enemies, great puzzles, good boss fights (the first may have it beat on these), and a very well told story. Carlyle does one hell of a job here. .
Last edited by n/a on 1/6/2015 7:28:14 PM
The only PS3 games I want to play are the ones in my backlog (which I already own), and the gems that I like to replay once in a while (which I already own).
I can see how this could appeal to someone who never had a PS3, or had to get rid of it for one reason or another. But for me? No thanks.
I've been playing some of my PS3 backlog, games I bought with super discounts (like Fuse for 4 dollars, Crysis 3 and Dead Space 3 for less than 10).
And for Christmas eve and new years eve my family and I played some PS Move party games.
For me, there isn't a game (or games for that matter) that justifies paying the PSNow suscription fee.
I can imagine that for many people who never had a PS3 it may be a good deal.
Still a weak model, imo. The ps3 library is great and all, but the limited selection of games? It seems like roulette. Asking $20/mo isn't a great price range. Considering one could pick up a used ps3 and buy the games for a far cheaper price and keep them…
Idk. I'm not interested because I have my ps3 hooked up. Perhaps I just wouldn't get the point because it's not my only option. I feel like even if it was it still wouldn't appeal to me.
Nobody ever stopped talking about PS2 and PS1 games they wanted to have on the network during the PS3 era.
I think it aims to be about easy availability. Gamers pay for the priviledge of playing anything that is on their mind to play, especially in the age where nobody has a collection anymore and it's a huge pain to whittle back their hard drive and go to the massive download list and see if they already have it or need to download it again.
Convenience for instant needs fulfilled basically.
once I get all the PS4 remasters I want of PS3 games I suppose I wouldn't game very often on my PS3. BUt that seems like a long time from now.
I like my remasters.
Last edited by Temjin001 on 1/6/2015 10:57:44 AM
I suppose what I would be interested in would be does anyone actually have stats for how many DO play older games, how much in their gaming time do they play these games, and really how many are old game titles do they play.
Personally I think its a great idea to have access to older games. Its a great service. It gives you that choice and accessibility. Granted, it probably does not have a high demand that may justify Sony's costs, but if they are willing to do it and take the cost hit, I appreciate it.
So question is, how long will Sony do this until they decide the cost for the service is greater than the profit. Its not like the first time Sony has phased services or features out before. Well, ones that no one really used in high numbers anyway.
Keep playing!
Nobody touched on the issue of controller lag. Why anyone would pay $20 bucks a month to play an older game is crazy, coupled with the fact that no matter how fast your connection is, minor controller lag will result. If it works like share-play, its gonna be annoying, expecially in quick input senarios, where quick reaction is needed.
You have to take into account that when you issue a command, it has to travel through the interwebs to the server and game code, back through the interwebs to your display. Genre's like fighting and sports games woulf be less enjoyable if you ask me.
And for the price of one year of this service, you could buy a new or used ps3 and a few games…
I think Playstation Now is a greedy money grabbing rip-off scheme to pull more money out of customers. It's the real reason they eliminated backwards compatibility.
Sony says they plan on bringing PS1 classics to PS Now. Answer me this, how come I can purchase a PS1 classic on a PSP, then download/play it on not only that system, but also on a Vita, AND on a PS3, but not PS4? So they can implement PS Now and charge us AGAIN if we want to play our already purchased games on PS4. You can buy it once and play it on ANY Playstation system with internet/PSN access (how it should be), EXCEPT the newest PS4. Really pi$$es me off.
If you can play it on your PS1, PS2, PS3, Vita, and PSP already, why would it piss you off? Just don't buy it, then. You already have it available on 5 other systems…. Play on one of those.
Lol, as Under said, you don't have to sign up. It's not as if playing old games on the PS3 vs the PS4 will be a vastly different experiance.
Last edited by Jawknee on 1/6/2015 12:44:20 PM
MasterLink. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar.
I can see where MasterLink is coming from. I have the PS4 hooked up to the biggest TV in the house and the PS3s have been relegated to the smaller TVs. The Vita is a handheld (small screen) and I don't own a PSP but also small screen. Not that the PS4 would add any graphical fidelity, but it would be nice to play it on a bigger screen or at least in the main room of the house.
What bugs me about the Now service is that if you own a digital copy of the PS3 game, you still have to "rent" it to play it on the PS4. That seems a tad underhanded with the excuse "they're totally separate services and we can't integrate it".
Just my humble opinion on the whole thing.
Why should i pay for something i already have to use on discs, its the reason i havnt bought a ps4 .i have a lot of ps3 games im certainly not going to pay to have to play ps3 games on ps4.count me out
I'm just suprised that the maximum they gave was three months…surely someone into this would rather a yearly sub with a massive discount?…either way as people have stated Ps3 is there to play with the games I want…the few i missed have been rereleased on ps4.
I would love to play PS3 games on my PS4 to take advantage of the streaming and screenshot features. However, I'm not rebuying/renting games that I already own (and most likely paid $50+ for). There are some exceptions but none are Sony branded games.
It's a nice idea..just not for me. My ps3 remains hooked up along with the ps2,Dreamcast, and snes. I see no need for it
Still have my PS3 hooked up to my main entertainment center, and there's not much I missed that I still want to play. I won't be signing up.
Yes i think sony is going the way x box originally did which is one of the reasons why i never liked them.eg. having to pay for everything like stuff you need to charge controllers which you didnt need on ps3 and the use of the network which was never free to use but ps3 was.Now look at sony charging to use you ps3 games which you already have .WHAT THE HELL SONY .YOU HAVE LOST ME 😑😑😑