Pachter is about to feel the wrath. He says PlayStation Now is a "joke."

Plainview

Plainview

I am a sinner.
Sep 11, 2013
47,675
25,279
4,279
Patcher is about to feel the wrath. He says PlayStation Now is a "joke" and has "no prayer of working," in the latest issue of Game Informer. I hope he has his flame suit on.....

via Game Informer/Video Gamer

"PlayStation Now is a joke," he said in the latest issue of Game Informer. "There is no publisher that is going to license content that's less than two-years old because they would be concerned that they can't sell as many copies if they make it available for subscription or rental.

"This has no prayer of working. None."​
 
Hmmm, publishers being bullish, hardly a grand statement of support, and Pachter actually has a point.
 
"No prayer of working" and "a joke" seems way too strong. We don't even know the details of the plan yet (e.g., what fees may be attached). Publishers already sign off on rentals. Most of the content will be over the two year old mark he's citing anyhow.

I haven't read the whole article, though, so maybe he makes a stronger case there.

p.s. Perhaps he is talking about PS Now in terms of it being designed for playing current titles on different platforms (e.g., playing a recent Vita release on the PS4 or whatever). He has a point from that angle. However, I've always seen PS Now primarily as a vehicle for backwards compatibility. From that perspective, the objections he raises don't seem all that troubling.
 
Last edited:
But they are fine with not very old games being on PSN+?
 
I am taking a wait and see approach with this anyway. The only thing I would want to play on PS Now is GT6, and any future PS3 exclusives that I haven't played yet.
 
Can't say that I'm all that excited for it, but I thought the point was to stream older games anyway?
 
If you're talking recent games, I agree, but like most in here, this seems like a premium form of BC to me. You pay x amount of dollars and you can play these games online via a stream. Although, with MS supposedly wanting to make it so you can play old streamed games with previous gen discs for free, I wonder if Sony will make that option available to their platform as well.
 
Playstation Now isn't as appealing to me as some other people because I already have a PS3 and I'm not going to play PS2, 1 titles so not that big of a deal for myself.
 
I have no interest in it either, we'll see how it goes though.
 
Kvally said:
The only thing I would want to play on PS Now is GT6, and any future PS3 exclusives that I haven't played yet.
Click to expand...

I don't think driving games are going to work very via streaming.
 
Playstation Now can work but really let me put in a PS1 disc and PS2 disc to play my old games. I don't care to pay twice for games I want to play.
 
It's too early too tell, since Sony have not announced the various pricing details to the third party publishers as of yet.

The best way I think how the service could suceed amongst third parties - is if Sony just monitored the playtime.
If you played a Atlus game 10% of the time on month - Atlus would get 10% of the income brought to IP-owners from your PSNow-subscription that month.
If you played a EA game, EA got 50% of the money that month of IP-owners share. :-/
Suffice to say, if that were a model, most publishers would probably try to get their best content up pretty quickly..

I think Pacther is correct tough - but I don't think that he got the timing down.
When this transaction-medel get's rolling, retail and digital stores will probably have a half year exclusive headstart, before the sub-par streaming version comes out, sort of like on the movies, cinema get's the film first, and video sales/rental later.
However in the start of the service, I think it's mostly going to be PS3-stuff. :-/
 
What did Sony pay for the company who had this streaming serve anyway?
 
I'm with the people that kept my PS3, so Now is really of no interest to me.

PS3 and PS4 sit side-by-side on my entertainment unit and my ~200 physical copy PS3 games aren't going anywhere and when I'm out/away, I've got the Vita. I'll have no use for Now.
 
I'm not even buying a PS4 until the summer. But from what I understand about Playstation Now, it's just not something that's of interest to me. Streaming TV shows, movies and anime? Sure. Games? Not so much.
 
I see this as more a statement about the publishers than Sony, and can't say that I really disagree with it unfortunately. It has nothing to do with the platform, but the myopic publishers inability to do anything other than charge more to increase profits.
 
As of right now PlayStation Now does seem like it'll be a joke but it's got potential. Pachter could be spot on for once.
 
Deadpool said:
I'm with the people that kept my PS3, so Now is really of no interest to me.

PS3 and PS4 sit side-by-side on my entertainment unit and my ~200 physical copy PS3 games aren't going anywhere and when I'm out/away, I've got the Vita. I'll have no use for Now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't think this was going to work so I went ahead and bought a PS3. I just don't see how it can happen with the bandwidth issues.
 
I think it's way too early to be considered a joke or successful. This is a pretty innovative service though and may force Microsoft to act. And increased competition means better service and lower prices for consumers.

We'll see what the pricing and latency is like and then I'll make my judgement.

But I don't understand Pachter'd point about 2+ year old games. Sony is already giving away 6 games a month that are less than a year old. If you look at the list, many of the best games of 2012 and 2013 have been released for free via PS+. I mean Last Light, Brothers, and Bioshock: Infinite, which were made free this month and last were 3 of my top 10 or 15 games from 2013.

And honestly, how much are the non super mega franchises (ie: AC, COD, BF, Madden, etc) really expected to sell after their first 6-12 months of release? It can't be that much. I mean look at the prices of the sales prices of Steam games that have been out for a year. It's nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Elitmannen
I was hoping PS Now would provide decent BC for PS3 games, saving me the cost of buying a PS3, but the more I listen to feedback and opinions -- including feedback even about the demo where the servers were 15 feet away -- the more I'm convinced 1) it will be noticeably laggy, 2) it will run games at sub-par resolutions, and 3) it will take considerable time to get it working well and have a robust library.

I think I'm better off just buying a PS3, rather than waiting with my fingers crossed for PS Now to provide a good BC experience. I suppose you could say, the games deserve it. I'm not a graphics whore, but I'd rather play the games straight from the machine, as intended.
 
Last edited:
Anderson said:
I was hoping PS Now would provide decent BC for PS3 games, saving me the cost of buying a PS3, but the more I listen to feedback and opinions -- including feedback even about the demo where the servers were 15 feet away -- the more I'm convinced 1) it will be noticeably laggy, 2) it will run games at sub-par resolutions, and 3) it will take considerable time to get it working well and have a robust library.

I think I'm better off just buying a PS3, rather than waiting with my fingers crossed for PS Now to provide a good BC experience. I suppose you could say, the games deserve it. I'm not a graphics whore, but I'd rather play the games straight from the machine, as intended.
Click to expand...

Yeah and Driving/FPS or "twitch" reflex type games are gonna blow, you' d need zero lag for them to be enjoyable to play. Games where latency isn't really an issue will be okay.

Not just the games that deserve to have a "complete" experience but the also the consumer who is paying for the service. I'm by no means a graphics whore (I love the EDF series, hardly a looker), however, if I'm paying again for these games they should be as they are originally intended.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back