PlayStation 4 Discussion

[rspencer86]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I'm very happy I kept my PS3. I've been playing it just as much as my PS4. Just too many awesome titles I haven't touched on PS3 for me to be done with it. Plus, it has HBO Go.

Unless Sony is just oblivious, they must be thinking that there are a substantial number of people that will accept the high costs on PS Now in exchange for the pure convenience of it. Banking on impulse buys (or rents, I suppose). I just don't see it.

[jeremym480]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Am I the only one who had zero interest in PS Now from the jump?

No, you are not. Honestly, I see little to no value in PS Now.

[Blzer]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

Am I the only one who had zero interest in PS Now from the jump?

I'm interested in playing my current PS3 games on my PS4, if it meant cleaning house and getting rid of my PS3 (and transferring all of my save file, etc.). This does not seem like the same thing at all, but I will still give this a chance mainly because I can also play these on my Vita it appears (and it can work as a "game rental" because Redbox doesn't hold these things and I'm not interested in waiting with something like Gamefly to ship to me).

Honestly, all I need is a playable Xbox version of ESPN NFL 2K5 on my PS4 (with that set of graphics, framerate, highlights, etc.). Never going to happen and can't happen regardless, but that would be just the ticket. Oh, and gimme MLB Power Pros too.

[mestevo]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I see some very limited value in PS Now personally. There are times when I'm bored and stuck away from my PC that I'd gladly pay a few bucks for something different. Longer term rentals though? No way.

I wonder how much of PS Now's pricing is Sony's cut, essentially establishing a floor on prices.

[daniel77733]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

As someone who's not an EA fan whatsoever, for $2.50 a month, EA Access is a steal even if after the one year subscription ends, I say it sucked. The reason why I say it's a steal is because of the very low cost. The only EA game that I ever usually buy is Madden and I would not have minded the ability to try out Madden NFL 25 while im waiting for Madden NFL 15.

However, Dragon Age III: Inquisition is on my list even though that's more because of who the developer is as opposed to who the publisher is. If I don't get a chance to buy and play the game, it being available a year later to play on EA Access would be great. Granted, there's no guarantee when games will be added to the service but im going to guess a year or so later in order to keep people interested so they re-subscribe as they would most likely be near the end of their current subscription plan.

As for other third party companies like Ubisoft, Capcom, Konami, etc., I can DEFINITELY see them doing what EA is doing and to be perfectly honest, I would actually do the same thing because downloading the games is better than streaming and you're controlling the entire library of your games, costs, profits, etc. Even at double the price of EA's Access, it's still a steal depending on how much you like that particular company and their games.

I'm going to assume that EA Access will be like the "free" games on PlayStation Plus in that as long as you're a subscriber, you can keep all the games that you download. For me, my favorite third party company, developer, publisher and go to company is Ubisoft so if they were to offer something like this for PlayStation 4 at a price of no more than double what EA is charging, chances are, I would subscribe.

In regards to PlayStation Now, im sorry but it's going to be a total and complete flop. I still haven't found the entire list of games that's supposed to be available today and chances are, it's because they're all average to crappy games that aren't worth renting to begin with. Good idea but horrible execution and I don't see it getting better with or without a subscription plan. When you have to PAY to RENT games DURING a CLOSED BETA, there's a HUGE problem.

Not only that but that Jack Basuer guy or whatever his name is avoided answering about PS one and PS2 games going on the service THREE times when asked in an interview by the same guy. Unless EA screws up, it's Sony who's coming off as the horrible value for gamers and consumers.

Personally, I would cancel PlayStation Now, sell off Gaikai for as much money as I can possibly get back and use that money to purchase Crytek and/or Capcom which would be a far better move, idea, value, etc. based on all the IP's that they would gain as exclusives.

To me, Sony is screwing up too much with PlayStation Now, PlayStation TV and their VR gimmick. Should be way more focused on their second party games and building PlayStation 4 for the long term. Sony is sitting on the success of the PlayStation 4 and like Microsoft with Xbox 360, eventually, you'll get surpassed.

PlayStation Plus has also been a disappointment thus far as there's been nothing but Indie games every month for PlayStation 4. I don't see this ending until January. Just like with PlayStation Now, third party publishers don't want to put their games on either service because they want sales, not rentals or freebies.

Even the PlayStation Store has been a disappointment. Horribly implemented and setup. Also, while this isn't on Sony, EVERY game, retail, PSN or Indie should have a playable demo available so you can try out the game. There's a good amount of PlayStation 4 games that im tempted to buy but I don't want to get burned if they suck.

Anyway, that's my opinion on EA Access, PlayStation Now, etc. In the end, to each his/her own.

[Picci]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

<b>As for other third party companies like Ubisoft, Capcom, Konami, etc., I can DEFINITELY see them doing what EA is doing and to be perfectly honest, I would actually do the same thing because downloading the games is better than streaming and you're controlling the entire library of your games, costs, profits, etc. Even at double the price of EA's Access, it's still a steal depending on how much you like that particular company and their games.</b>

I'm going to assume that EA Access will be like the "free" games on PlayStation Plus in that as long as you're a subscriber, you can keep all the games that you download. For me, my favorite third party company, developer, publisher and go to company is Ubisoft so if they were to offer something like this for PlayStation 4 at a price of no more than double what EA is charging, chances are, I would subscribe.

In regards to PlayStation Now, im sorry but it's going to be a total and complete flop. I still haven't found the entire list of games that's supposed to be available today and chances are, it's because they're all average to crappy games that aren't worth renting to begin with. Good idea but horrible execution and I don't see it getting better with or without a subscription plan. When you have to PAY to RENT games DURING a CLOSED BETA, there's a HUGE problem.

Not only that but that Jack Basuer guy or whatever his name is avoided answering about PS one and PS2 games going on the service THREE times when asked in an interview by the same guy. Unless EA screws up, it's Sony who's coming off as the horrible value for gamers and consumers.

<b>To me, Sony is screwing up too much with PlayStation Now, PlayStation TV and their VR gimmick. Should be way more focused on their second party games and building PlayStation 4 for the long term. </b>Sony is sitting on the success of the PlayStation 4 and like Microsoft with Xbox 360, eventually, you'll get surpassed.

<b>PlayStation Plus has also been a disappointment thus far as there's been nothing but Indie games every month for PlayStation 4. I don't see this ending until January. Just like with PlayStation Now, third party publishers don't want to put their games on either service because they want sales, not rentals or freebies. </b>

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/EmB4QtACPVBpS" width="500" height="203" frameBorder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I don't see other companies doing the EA thing simply because they're aren't near the size of EA. Maybe Ubisoft, but I don't see Capcom, Konami, etc being able to do this themselves.

[canucksss]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I have interest in some PS1 and PS2 classics but not at the current pricing. The prices to rent these games you can walk into gamestop and buy them at the same price or cheaper.

That is if you kept your PS1, PS2 or PS3 (backward compatible).... but yea...Im only interested if this is like the PS plus with yearly membership ($50 or less) and you could play whatever games u like from PS1-PS3 with no time limit. I was so excited about PS Now because I skipped PS3 and went with 360. But now, with all these crazy pricing, NOT ANYMORE. I'll just buy PS3 then buy the old games i like. I have my PS2 and its still working..and i have the games i like in that machine.

Whoever thinks about this about renting a game for $4 for 4 hours is a FOOL. And if the pricing of rents will be the reason why PS Now will flop...i hope that FOOL(s) be fired and never work again in gaming industry.

[mestevo]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I'd be surprised if it's that cheap, some games are $50 for a 90 day rental.

[TheBadazz]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I'd be surprised if it's that cheap, some games are $50 for a 90 day rental.

Yea this is going to turn out to be epic fail.

[ODogg]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

It's not even near being the same thing as season pass.

It's only to play the full game (aside from UT modes perhaps) for a few hours before it locks you out until the game releases. That's all.

I don't understand why people are thinking they'll get unlimited playtime of a full game for 5 days straight when it's been explicitly stated by both MS and EA that that's not the case.

They've not stated it's all games for only a few hours..just some may be. It's generally accepted by most it'll be the non-sports, story based games that will be time limited, which makes sense since people could just play and beat them in five days.

Sports games however aren't like that and likely will be just how they were in the 360 program and full access until the full game is our at retail. That program ran for years and didn't cannibalize EAs retail profits.

[ubernoob]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

They've not stated it's all games for only a few hours..just some may be. It's generally accepted by most it'll be the non-sports, story based games that will be time limited, which makes sense since people could just play and beat them in five days.

Sports games however aren't like that and likely will be just how they were in the 360 program and full access until the full game is our at retail. That program ran for years and didn't cannibalize EAs retail profits.

Don't be disappointed when the sports games are a "demo" that you can only play for a few hours then. Don't say they didn't say that.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

I wouldn't be surprised if the sports games were limited to 2 teams and exhibition, but with unlimited game time for 5 days.

[Dog]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

If there isn't a reasonably priced subscription, I have no interest in PS Now

[ubernoob]

Re: PlayStation 4 Discussion

If there isn't a reasonably priced subscription, I have no interest in PS Now

Even if there were one, I have no interest in it personally.