And dear god I hope it doesn't look like that with a 1000 tiles to wade through

Um - ok - so just go buy your games. Although I think the cost for the number of games you can access is a far better deal. Personally I'll take the options of services if I can play more games for less money.

More like PS Now in structure I think that Plus. And based on the rental prices per game - EAs system looks far more cost effective than Now.

Because to spite what everyone around here thinks - that Sony is their friend, they are really a business out to make money just like the others. This price structure makes PS Now look a terrible value. It already looked pricey but if there is a similar service for much less it would really carve into the use of Now

This actually seems like a deal though as a way to play titles you might have skipped at $60 or a game you may have bought and played but gotten rid off and you feel like giving it a go again. $30 a year seems pretty fair for this.

This seems like a cool plan to me for those hit or miss games. There are a few EA games that look interesting but unproven. I wouldn't pay $60 for the game - maybe $20 - but by the time they get that low they'd been in this vault I bet, so the $30 a year thing seems like a good deal so far to me.

The name isn't supporting genocide etc... I think part of the problem with this is it does seem a media manufactured issue to many people. Yes there are vocal native american activists who want the named change but there are a lot of native americans that also simply don't care or have other political issues they'd…

well since everyone is pull out random personal experience - I can throw in my mom 1/4 Cherokee - retired from the DC area and went out west to live on a reservation. She has been a life long Redskins fan. I asked her about the name about a month ago and her response was most people don't actually care one way or…

While it is depressing to have delays, this same thing happens every year - all these awesome games announced for the fall and 50% of them get delayed to the following year. It does probably hurt the new machines because there isn't a whole hell of a lot to play. It is said that Last of Us HD will drive PS4 and the…

Well what is better for the brand? Sending a message that makes the company look stupid over a kid's sweatshirt or letting it slide and not calling attention to it? I doubt the kid is covered by the FSU agreement and if they really were worried about the brand, send the kid some Nike gear and a friendly note like -…

The thing for me with open world is that there has to be something meaningful to discover. Red Dead and Skyrim do this pretty well. GTA usually does not do this well for me. By meaningful something to discover - a lost tomb, a involved side quest story line, lost treasure, anything about discovering the unknown or…

Games for 3 devices means own all three devices which would serious put a cramp in any value estimate. So in terms not as good a service, I'll go back to they are pretty much the same this gen.

Well Played

If that is what they are thinking they should pilot in those places - to the audience it is designed for. Otherwise it'll get a bad wrap before it can get traction for those markets.

How do you figure this? They are the same value. Systems are the same price, features are more or less the same - live being $5 or so more isn't enough to change the value proposition. Like which ever one you want, but I don't think calling one a better value is a fair assessment.

You mean like the EA plan that was $30 a year that all the Sony fans cheered about not being on PS4 yesterday? Because Sony was looking out for them? I think Sony was more interested in looking out for Now and protecting the insane pricing model. I mean for the price of one game for 90 days you get year of all the…

Kinda makes that EA plan announced yesterday sound a whole lot better. And explains why Sony won't add the service

From a business standpoint I'm not sure that is the message Sony would want to go with...

But isn't that for each person to decide? If you don't find value, don't buy it. But why have Sony dictate what is and isn't of value?

How is it when Microsoft or Apple limits customer choice the internet gets a hate on - but when Sony does it they are some how taking care of me?