×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

PlayStation Now, Sony's 'Netflix For Games' -- Pros and Cons

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the stream-all-the-things dept.

PlayStation (Games) 75

An anonymous reader writes: When Sony acquired nascent cloud gaming service Gaikai, it was obvious they were interested in bringing streamed gaming to the PlayStation. The service is in the process of coming online, in a beta test that started this week. The idea is simple, and one that game companies are excited about — but it's also complex and expensive, creating a new problem for each one it solves. The biggest difficulty you'd expect — latency — actually seems to hold up pretty well. It'll even hold its own when fighting for bandwidth with Netflix and other video streams.

But the expense of using the service is excessive. "To rent Darksiders, a game that's been practically given away to PC owners thanks to Humble Bundle and the collapse of publisher THQ, you can pay $14.99 for 90 days, $7.99 for 30 days, $5.99 for 5 days or — no joke — $4.99 for four hours. ... Final Fantasy 13-2 costs $29.99 for 90 days. A used copy of the same costs $20 at GameStop." In addition, the pricing options are unusual and unpredictable. Users can't simply pay a flat monthly fee for service. "Variable pricing is in place because Sony gave the publishers and developers free reign to set their own prices, which results in wildly disparate costs for different games and different periods of rental time. It's not even mandatory that you have to have all four categories of rental time. I went to check out Saints Row 3 and found that it only had the four hour and 90 day options."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

sega channel (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47589255)

Anyone else remember sega channel for sega genesis? i think 11.99 got me unlimited games on it for the month (granted i only recall 5-8 games on it at a time, and they would rotate every month) Seems like a much better price structure to me. 9.99 a month to play whatever limited rotating catalog is there, i think a number of gamers would pay for that, but with the prices the way they are talking it will fail (after it makes moms and dads angry at their kids for their 200 a month gaming bill)

Re:sega channel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589341)

Sega channel was the shit, and way before its time like most Sega products when I think about it. IMO the Sega Channel and the Dreamcast having a 56k modem were very innovative products.

Re:sega channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47590283)

Completely agree.

Re:sega channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589369)

It really is a shame SEGA is no longer a player in this race, they made so many good choices with their consoles. I know this is a pie in the sky dream, but sony and ms are both frustrating their audiences these days, and wii u not being as popular as hoped, perhaps its a time a new or rather old player gets back into it :)

Re: sega channel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47591391)

Wii U is popular - it outsells XB1 on a weekly basis.

Re:sega channel (1)

Vyse of Arcadia (1220278) | about 4 months ago | (#47589509)

God, I wanted Sega Channel so much as a kid. All my friends at school had it, but I lived out in the sticks, where there wasn't cable.

Anyone else remember sega channel for sega genesis? i think 11.99 got me unlimited games on it for the month (granted i only recall 5-8 games on it at a time, and they would rotate every month) Seems like a much better price structure to me. 9.99 a month to play whatever limited rotating catalog is there

You pretty much just described Playstation+. Except it's $49.99 a year (or the $9.99 a month option if you're silly,) and although games are rotated out monthly, once they've been added to your account you can still download and play them as long as you're a member. If I were so inclined, I could go download and play a game that they rotated out of the service two years ago.

Re: sega channel (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 months ago | (#47591987)

Playstation+ is only $50 a year and it gives you a large selection of games to play? That's cheaper than Netflix, how is this not news?

Re: sega channel (1)

DrGamez (1134281) | about 4 months ago | (#47601345)

Well now it's mandatory to play online, and XBox Live does (sorta) the same thing with it's free games so it's slightly less "amazing".

But before the PS4 era, Playstation+ was pretty spectacular for value, so much so that Microsoft has had to play catch-up.

Re: sega channel (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 4 months ago | (#47590511)

Also closer to netflix...

Re:sega channel (1)

DiEx-15 (959602) | about 4 months ago | (#47594131)

Anyone else remember sega channel for sega genesis? i think 11.99 got me unlimited games on it for the month (granted i only recall 5-8 games on it at a time, and they would rotate every month) Seems like a much better price structure to me. 9.99 a month to play whatever limited rotating catalog is there, i think a number of gamers would pay for that, but with the prices the way they are talking it will fail (after it makes moms and dads angry at their kids for their 200 a month gaming bill)

That isn't a fair comparison. Not everybody was able to get the Sega Channel because of technological limitations. Unlike now where Sony's crap is delivered via internet.

Case in point: I lived in Iowa (which is still in the stone age as far as I am concerned) when the Sega Channel came out. I asked the precursor for MediaConArtists (otherwise known as Mediacom, a Comcast offshoot) for it and they gave me herp derp about how they were unable to get it. Basically they said that they were limited, technology wise, from providing it. Granted, the channel didn't last long and it made sense that they didn't want to upgrade the system for one channel. Then again, they got assimilated by the MediaCon Borg a few years later and provided shitty "blazing speeds" that disconnect at random (or whenever they felt like it) for hours on end in my area.

Now at days: If your town can get internet via broadband, you can get Sony's deal. Provided of course the area in Iowa doesn't think Broadband is a witch that needs burned at the stake.

Re:sega channel (1)

djnforce9 (1481137) | about 3 months ago | (#47680161)

That could work but the period of time before rotating titles would need to be greatly increased because games take waaaaaay longer to beat nowadays than back in the Sega Genesis era. For example, you could blaze through Sonic the Hedgehog in maybe an hour or less but even modern platformers have a 10+ hour play time before completion (unless you are speed-running or insanely good at the game).

Sony's current pricing scheme is not going to work as it's just way too much for little time. Hopefully the excess is just to fund the project and complete development and NOT the final rates (much like the game which costs $75 for early access although I cannot remember its title off-hand).

Sony can pack it in (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589259)

They are so far removed from their customers, they don't even see it anymore when they're gouging them in one way or another. They bought their own intellectual property propaganda hook, line and sinker. Can't let the consumers have anything for a flat fee. Can't let them use anything in a way that wasn't intended.

Sony, things don't become valuable by putting locks and price tags on them. Repent or you're finished.

Re:Sony can pack it in (3, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 4 months ago | (#47589323)

PROS:
Lets you live forever
Gives great blow jobs
Makes you wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice

CONS:
Sony

Looks like the CONS trump all the PROS.

Re:Sony can pack it in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589523)

Best post of the day. Sums it up pretty well.

Re:Sony can pack it in (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47600513)

lovely to see slashdot still holds a hate boner for sony despite every tech company under the sun partaking in the exact same negative business practises

I'm excited! (0)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47589263)

I was a huge fan of OnLive, probably spent 300+ hours using the service. it's a shame it went under, but I'm glad to get the Now.

the best part of Now is it will bring a deep library of older games to my PS4, which is suffering a bit of a content drought. I'm not worried about the pricing, as I usually burn through a game in two or three weeks and rarely touch it after. So $8 seems like a fair price to pay for bringing the best of the PS3 library to my PS4.

Re:I'm excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589347)

But if you purchase the media instead, you can loan it out to friends, resell it, give it away, use it as a coaster, etc. This way you get - poof - nothing. You're paying more for far, far less. That doesn't bother you at all?

Re: I'm excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589377)

The concept of a sanity check doesn't exist for most gamers, and NO console barons. It's going to continue to get worse before it gets better. (If that ever happens, I don't hold much faith)

Re:I'm excited! (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47591153)

But if you purchase the media instead, you can loan it out to friends, resell it, give it away, use it as a coaster, etc. This way you get - poof - nothing. You're paying more for far, far less. That doesn't bother you at all?

not really. as I said, I usually play a game for a couple weeks then never touch it again. so an $8 30-day rental is just as good for me as an $8 used game (except for the coaster part).

Another thing to consider, I'm somewhat mobility limited due to medical issues, and to buy an $8 game I'd have to spend $20 in uber rides to get to the gamestop and back. streaming is the most convenient for me.

Re:I'm excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589417)

Guess you pay the premium to play those PS3 games on your PS4 instead of hooking for PS3 in. For the computer the ONLY reason you would go with a service like this is if you have a PC that can't run the game.

Can't compare this to netflix. Netflix stores movie on a hard drive and transfer it to your device, game service like this on the other hands requires the server to do the processing and stream the video to your PC. That is why it is so expensive. This is kinda like renting a PC without owning one. You will end up paying more over time if you are always renting games.

Re:I'm excited! (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47590565)

Netflix stores movie on a hard drive

I'm pretty sure that's the one thing Netflix does not do.

Re:I'm excited! (2)

Fieryphoenix (1161565) | about 4 months ago | (#47591907)

Sure they do. Just not the customers' hard drives.

Re:I'm excited! (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47591139)

well I don't have a ps3 and I'm not gonna be one of those dorks with the mega entertainment centers with 20 remotes and wires everywhere.

Re:I'm excited! (1)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 4 months ago | (#47589855)

How is everyone at Sony Corp? Tell them to make a new game called "Sockpuppets On Astroturf."

Re:I'm excited! (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47591129)

whatever. reading it over, i think my post comes across a little bit fanboi-ish, but tbh I was a huge fanboi for onlive. to have onlive again (or an equivalent service) is huge for me. ymmv.

ok, i'll throw you a bone. i looked at their launch catalog. and it seemed a little anemic. some of the games are cool - saints row 3, deus ex human revolution, but these were also on onlive (obv that publisher is super into the idea of streaming) and I played through them. some new ones there that I've never played, like darksiders II and twisted metal, but those don't grab me. if they had arkham city or bioshock infinite I would pounce, or like a madden game or some thing (but isn't EA doing its own subscription thing? so odds are slim...). Similarly I would have pounced on last of us, but they just released a version of that on ps4!

live everything else, the catalog will catch up.

Re:I'm excited! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47591185)

Heh...if OnLive, which was the first "possible" there in the space couldn't hack it and went under...

There's limitations to the whole concept and there's not enough bandwidth/latency to actually "make it work" in the same model and way that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are used to for "gaming". The numbers are rather against the whole idea in the large. It only works if you've got relatively small numbers of subscribers playing simultaneously. If you've got larger than hundreds per location, it doesn't work. If you're trying to reach rural locations...it doesn't work.

This is a folly. It will be one for some time to come, actually.

I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (4, Insightful)

msobkow (48369) | about 4 months ago | (#47589279)

Were it "Netflix for games" you'd pay a flat monthly fee and be able to play whatever game(s) you want.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589299)

and if you live outside the US, the service will cost more, but have about 10% of the games, and only about 3 of them will be of any interest.

GameFly (0)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47589367)

Were it "Netflix for games" you'd pay a flat monthly fee and be able to play whatever game(s) you want.

There are plenty of movies that aren't on Netflix streaming. Now if you meant Netflix's DVD service, then the Netflix of video games is called GameFly.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589515)

Were it "Netflix for games" you'd pay a flat monthly fee and be able to play whatever game(s) you want

Indeed, it is much more like "Blockbuster for games".
They also rented games short term for a few bucks.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589655)

Yeah, which is better than what Sony has now, but I have a feeling that this will be their future model. The basic service will be all-you-can-eat for a monthly fee, and when new games come out, there will be an individual "unlock" option so that you can play them before they do the equivalent of "go to video" - which takes several months after release. That, plus in-game paid content, will leave Sony plenty of money, and all without some middle man taking a cut.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47590233)

Indeed, this isn't much more than normal rental setup except you don't have anything to return by the due date.

Oh and it's a lot more expensive than any blockbuster.

Seroiusly. almost 5 bucks for 4 hours?

The only use this is probably going to get is going to harm the industry more than help it. The only thing worth renting for a week or so will be the brand new just-released AAA titles. The ones that people currently buy new, play for a few days, finish it, then try to return it for credit.

And if those titles aren't available, there just won't be much point in renting anything on it since for those prices you can likely find and buy the game for keeps.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47591117)

But Sony Games, or EA Games, or whoever it is, you get crappy games at a high cost, even if you have access to their full catalog. Yes, Netflix doesn't have everything, but it has a lot of good stuff and high quality stuff. I would not want even one single game from Sony, even if it were free.

Re:I'd hardly call this "Netflix for games" (1)

RyoShin (610051) | about 4 months ago | (#47608229)

It's more like Amazon Video, but "Amazon Video for games" doesn't get as many clicks.

Oh dear. That is a mess. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589301)

That is one hell of a mess.
They should have went with fixed subs.

Pay-per-use is more like Blockbuster or something else similar. Look how that turned out.

Having BOTH systems isn't that bad though.
PPU and a subscription is the best method. Throw in PAYG and you will actually have a service that will last more than 3 years.

Re:Oh dear. That is a mess. (1)

Noah Haders (3621429) | about 4 months ago | (#47589327)

Having BOTH systems isn't that bad though. PPU and a subscription is the best method.

yeah right. onlive opened with this model, and people here went apeshit. heck, people on here complain because they pay for cable and have to watch ads too.

Re:Oh dear. That is a mess. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47591413)

Yes, well when cable was first offered, the point of paying the premiums was to avoid ads.. It's still a legitimate complaint. It's just that suckers who dog people who complain about ads have saddled the rest of us with the worst combo, paying for ads.

Cough{fail}cough (2)

donnie Freyer (2881319) | about 4 months ago | (#47589305)

This is awful. If this were something affordable and flat rate it would be an amazing success. -gotta be a way, better way, better waaay hey..

EDIT: it's "free rein", not "free reign" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589383)

Reign means "to rule over" or, in noun form, the period of rulership (Elizabeth's long reign). Reins are the straps used to control a horse in saddle or harness. To be given free rein is to be allowed to do as you please. To rein someone in is to prevent them from doing as they please.

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/03/rein-or-reign/

Re: EDIT: it's "free rein", not "free reign" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47590251)

"Free reign" is when a crap country is trying to solicit a new monarch and must come up with appropriate incentives.

They already have Netflix for games. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589389)

It is called PSN. A PSN+ membership is roughly 50EUR a year here. That's more or less the price of an AAA game. And you get so many good games, you won't have the time to enjoy them all. So, unless you like collecting games, nothing beats PSN+ in value for money. At least not in the console world ;-)

I wonder what made Sony invest in this new crap. I doubt they will make more money with that, since it seems to be much more favourable to the developers than the distributor. And with Steam boxes around the corner, who is going to pay that much for renting streamed games?

Selection (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47589419)

I wonder what made Sony invest in this new crap.

Inability to get a reliable PlayStation 2 and 3 emulator running on a PlayStation 4, I'm guessing.

And with Steam boxes around the corner, who is going to pay that much for renting streamed games?

People who want specific titles that are on PlayStation but not Steam for Linux. These can be PlayStation exclusives, PS360 games that aren't ported to PC, or PS3/Steam games whose Steam version is Windows-only.

Re:They already have Netflix for games. (1)

Joe Gillian (3683399) | about 4 months ago | (#47590437)

What made Sony invest in this is how they couldn't even get PS1/PS2 compatibility on the PS3. They tried several different methods, but they either didn't work or worked so poorly that they were later removed from the console.

The first-gen (launch) PS3s were unique in that they have hardware-based compatibility, which was Sony's first attempt at making them backwards-compatible. They have the best compatibility of all the PS3s because they essentially have a semi-complete set of PS2 hardware inside the console with the PS3 hardware. The problem here was that not all games were compatible, and even had different compatibility between different versions of the same hardware (the initial 20/40GB ones known as CECH-A and CECH-B versus the slightly later 60/80GB ones known as CECH-D and CECH-E). This means that it's entirely possible a game will work on a CECH-A or B PS3 but not at all on a CECH-D or E PS3. One of the better-known games this occurs with is La Pucelle: Tactics, which won't work at all on the D or E models but will on the A or B models.

The hardware compatibility was so much of a headache for Sony that they shifted the second generation of PS3s from hardware compatibility to emulation. This somehow managed to be even worse than the hardware compatibility to the point where Sony actually patched it out in a firmware update a few years later. From then on, PS3s could play PS1 games, but not PS2 games.

If they couldn't get it right with the PS3 in 2007, there's no way they'd repeat it for the PS4.

Re:They already have Netflix for games. (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about 4 months ago | (#47590539)

The reason the PS3's PS2 backwards compatibility was removed was cost-cutting, not technical issues as you seem to be implying.

The market will sort it out (1, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | about 4 months ago | (#47589405)

This is one of those problems a free market can solve. It might lead to better games, if some games do well at higher prices while others have to lower theirs.

Re: The market will sort it out (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589669)

Siloed software on a monopoly isn't a free market...

Re:The market will sort it out (1)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 4 months ago | (#47591961)

A free market would be allowing competing services to the customers - ran by independent businesses. This is literally the opposite of a free market, it's a SONY market, where publishers can offer their products with 4 options available, their freedom is to set the prices.

pros and cons (1, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 4 months ago | (#47589411)

Sony

There's your biggest con, right there.

Re:pros and cons (1)

thuongsykx (3714351) | about 4 months ago | (#47592053)

Games in smartphone very fun, I play so much. thanks all

There are no pros (2)

Torp (199297) | about 4 months ago | (#47589427)

Not with this pricing model.
PSA: On consoles, it's much cheaper to buy retail discs than to touch any form of digital-only delivery. Especially if you're willing to wait a few months from launch, but even if you buy the latest and greatest(tm).

PlayStation Store-only games (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47589439)

On consoles, it's much cheaper to buy retail discs than to touch any form of digital-only delivery.

Unless, of course, the game is not sold on disc at all. Many of these are games of smaller scope than a typical disc game.

Re:PlayStation Store-only games (1)

Torp (199297) | about 4 months ago | (#47589481)

Yeah but those kinds of games tend to show up on PC on humble bundle, steam or gog later... for 1.99 :)
Or even on console - check out the disc for Journey Collector's edition on Amazon. It actually contains Journey, Flower and Flow.

Re:There are no pros (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 4 months ago | (#47589553)

I'm not sure if this counts, but on handhelds, day of release, I couldn't find fire emblem awakening anywhere. It was available at the same price on nintendo's e shop.

I don't know if that changes things fwiw.

Re:There are no pros (1)

Sockatume (732728) | about 4 months ago | (#47597987)

They've improved enormously lately. Every year during the manufacturers' crazy sales I stock up on five year old games for a few quid apiece. I'm still playing through the £50 I spent in 2013.

glad i quit gaming a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589431)

if i ever get in the mood i'll just play some crap from gog

Re:glad i quit gaming a long time ago (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589751)

if i ever get in the mood i'll just play some crap from gog

How about instead buy some good [gog.com] games [gog.com] from [gog.com] GOG [gog.com] ?

PS4 or Xbox one won't get my money, and... (2)

MindPrison (864299) | about 4 months ago | (#47589477)

...here's why:

Renting games is ANY company's wettest dream. Hollywood have a long history of re-releasing their old office hits over and over again, milking the same cow into retirement and even beyond the grave, and families of actors & owners loves this, it's a guaranteed way to get money - basically forever!

Why sell you the game, when they can rent it to you over and over again? Remember that cool GTA5 game you paid 60$ (Some of us in Sweden paid 120$ for it) back in the days? 10 years later you want to revive your "fun days" and in a future of "rental only" game systems, they'll be able to MILK you into oblivion for as long as it takes, with literally millions of old programs from every system, simply because you didn't protect your purchases - it's not their fault either, it's YOU who accept it and thinks it's totally okay to do so.

Netflix is a GREAT ad-free service, so much so that I've been lazy when it comes to my DVD collection. But what Netflix doesn't give me is a permanent possibility to relive those fun moments I had with a few flicks some years ago...unless they've paid for the license to retain the flick in their collection. When it's in MY DVD collection, I don't need a license or permission, I just dust of that old DVD player and have a GREAT time - for free (or at least get the full value of true ownership).

I have Wii-U, and we finally have some great games for it (certainly took a while), it even comes with downloadable indie-games that are so cheap (and fun) they rival the second-hand store/game-this-and-game-that-stores AND it's possible to RE-install on the same console if I should decide to sell the console, that's okay in my book...downloadable games as long as they're somewhat transferable...is the future and the way to go, I love not having to SWITCH between CDs all the time.

So there you have it, Sony Or Microsoft won't get my money this time as they've chosen the wrong way - excessive greed.

That's because you have Netflix streaming... (1)

moosehooey (953907) | about 4 months ago | (#47589565)

That's because you have the streaming service instead of the DVD rental service.

Re:PS4 or Xbox one won't get my money, and... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47591135)

They still rent games now. You may be paying $60, but you can only play it with permission and you do not own it. Move to a new computer and you may need to buy it again because it won't let you re-install. Or your DRM vendor goes out of business and you lose your games. Or they force an mandatory patch an you breaking the game. Luckily no one's been like Amazon and deleted your purchase, but the capability is there.

Re:PS4 or Xbox one won't get my money, and... (0)

MindPrison (864299) | about 4 months ago | (#47591823)

Luckily no one's been like Amazon and deleted your purchase, but the capability is there.

Sony already lost me when they first announced that they wouldn't touch the Linux install possibility on the PS3, and then ONE month later announced that their latest update would remove the possibility to install another OS onto it.

Re:PS4 or Xbox one won't get my money, and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47591837)

*gasp* I wasn't aware they'd pulled games off of store shelves and forced you to rent them digitally every time you want to play them. Those monsters!

Streaming hasn't eliminated retail disc releases. This won't either.

To summarize... (1)

Dzimas (547818) | about 4 months ago | (#47589501)

"But the expense of using the service is excessive, blah blah" = "It costs too much."

Re: To summarize... (1)

Entrope (68843) | about 4 months ago | (#47590257)

The service is still in beta, too -- I would hope they rationalize the pricing (especially for first-party games) by the time they end the beta. Personally, I can't see myself paying these rates ever -- I have a perfectly functional PS3 that I still use more than my PS4, and I somewhere have a PS2 for all my really old disc games.

Re:To summarize... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47592707)

Hear, hear. Typical of a Slashdot summary to use nine words, where four will suffice.

Typical Sony (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589555)

This company is the master of shooting themselves in the foot. One way or another.

Re:Typical Sony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47589611)

and they still make more money than the GDP of some countries

Re:Typical Sony (2)

umdesch4 (3036737) | about 4 months ago | (#47589707)

The not-so-secret to Sony's continued success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]

Re:Typical Sony (1)

maliqua (1316471) | about 4 months ago | (#47589843)

That phrase was coined in the 1800s.. adjusting for larger population size and therefor higher birthrates we're looking at about 5 per second

Bandwith Caps (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 months ago | (#47590859)

Bandwidth caps will kill this and I personally will never use the service cap or no caps. I want zero worries about bandwidth usage. And I refuse to rent games ever.

That's not how Netflix works. (1)

Seumas (6865) | about 4 months ago | (#47590885)

Netflix gives me unlimited access to an enormous library of content for $8/mo. Playstastion Now gives me temporary access to individually purchased items. The two are nothing alike, other than the fact that they transmit temporarily owned content over the internet to the customer.

As to the pricing issues -- yes, they are destined to fail. Netflix and Amazon Prime made it cheaper and easier to pay for content than for people to acquire it through other means. Services like RDIO made it almost absurd to bother acquiring music any other way, for the mere $5/mo. A gaming service could accomplish this, but they need to provide a massive catalog of consistent content without a thousand strings attached and for a really low price. Additionally, it needs to be through a unified distribution channel; nobody wants to subscribe to EA, then to Ubisoft, then to Valve, then to Activision/Blizzard, then to Riot, then to Sony, then to Microsoft.

Gaming suffers from the problem television still does and that others (music and movies) used to (but still do, to a smaller extent). They want to profit from constraining their distribution; not operate like the manufacturer of ANY other product. Almost every company in the world wants their product in as many stores as possible for as many avenues to the customer as possible. They don't care if they're sold at the gas station, convenience store, Amazon.com, Target, Albertson's, and Safeway. Unfortunately, when it comes to digital media -- especially games -- some are available only on Origin. Some only on Steam. Some only on GOG. Some only on one platform for awhile, then no longer. This model has to change. Constraint and hassle needs to be eradicated. Distribution channels need to compete not on exclusivity, but on price and service and interface and community.

Until that happens, this ridiculous "pay a dollar or more an hour for a twenty year old game streamed over the internet" idea is dead.

PS4 has been disappointing in this regard .... (3, Interesting)

King_TJ (85913) | about 4 months ago | (#47591673)

This is just the latest blast of greed from Sony with this console.
I purchased a PS4 just a week or two ago, after holding out this long with our aging PS3 system -- under the assumption it would be a worth successor. In a few ways, it is. Certainly, the new DualShock controllers are one of the highlights. They're more comfortable to hold, have the ability to plug in headphones and route the game audio through them, have the touch-pad in the middle, different colored lights indicating player 1, 2, 3, etc. Good stuff. But then I discovered you couldn't even download your MP3 music to the PS4 from a memory stick to play it! The only way it seems to allow music playing is via a subscription service! Then you have to pay for the PSNetwork, or else you're pretty much locked out of playing games online. (That was always a reason I preferred PS3 to X-Box in the past... Don't like to pay subscription fees just for the privilege of online play of games I just paid $60 a pop for!)

I'm *almost* surprised Sony didn't tell me that like my satellite TV box, I'm simply renting it from them and must return it when my subscription with them expires!

Re:PS4 has been disappointing in this regard .... (1)

Rick in China (2934527) | about 4 months ago | (#47591971)

I'm on the cusp of upgrading -- currently sitting with my retail PS3, modded xbox, and dusty wii. You make some good points and after reading that, I think I'll wait on the PS4 upgrade.. pay to play online? I think not. Waiting for these issues to be resolved, appreciate your insights.. I'd have modded it up if I had points right now. Thanks! :D

Re:PS4 has been disappointing in this regard .... (3, Insightful)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 4 months ago | (#47592443)

What did you expect? The old Sony is back - after taking a beating by both the Wii and Xbox360 last generation, they were humbled.

So they produced this piece of hardware called the PS4. They saw the Xbox One and how Microsoft fumbled it (again, Microsoft got greedy because they saw the success of the Xbox360). They see the PS4 outselling the Xbox One by miles and think they own it all.

The lessons were that no, the Xbox One isn't out - think of it as the PS3 of the last generation (the PS3 was a joke until a couple of years in and a few price drops later). In fact, the Xbox One sales are probably like the PS3 was back then. Both can end up quite successful (the PS3 was quite a good system in the end).

Even better, we NEED both. If anything, to keep both Microsoft AND Sony honest. And they are - features announced on one are added to the other, so competition is keeping both in check.

Heck, PS+ and Xbox Live - the free games keep getting better because Microsoft started offering two games a month, then Sony, and so on. Blu-Ray 3D was next (Microsoft announced it for the August update, PS4 got it the week after that). Media playback is probably coming next.

There's no doubt, though, both consoles are INCREDIBLY immature at launch - they both needed a year - even now both are way better than they were at launch.

Re:PS4 has been disappointing in this regard .... (1)

overnight_failure (1032886) | about 4 months ago | (#47592537)

Also there's a good reason why the Playstation store shows PS3 content when you have a PS4, as otherwise the shelves would look rather bare.

Thanks again console chumps! (1)

aybiss (876862) | about 4 months ago | (#47596775)

Thanks guys but would you fucking stop now? First you decide locked-in un-upgradeably consoles are cool. Then you decide DRM-laden games are cool.

Now you're going to make the industry think we all want to rent games ad-inifinitum. For fuck's sake STOP!!!

I sometimes like to play my games from 10 years ago. Will you be able to do that? FFS...

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?