playstation now -
playstation now -

Industry analyst Michael Pachter has slammed Sony's upcoming streaming service PlayStation Now, labelling it a "joke" and claiming that "no publisher" will allow any title less than two years old to appear on the service.

"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."

SCEA's marketing VP John Koller, however, claims that "publishers are being exceedingly bullish" about the prospect of PlayStation Now, although Sony has yet to officially announce any of the service's third-party partners.

The service lets users stream PlayStation titles to a variety of devices, including tablets, smartphones and Bravia TVs.

A closed beta for PlayStation Now is currently underway in the US with the full service due to launch this summer. The service is expected to launch in the UK next year.

Source: Game Informer | March 2014

New stuff to check out

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments


In all honesty I don't need Playstation now to give me brand new games. PS+ can do that if i hadn't bought said games already. What I really want from PSNow and what I believe most people want is digital ps1, ps2 and ps3 games to compensate for the lack of backwards compatibility and a way to play classic games again.... Legally.
Posted 16:59 on 06 February 2014
mralexhead's Avatar


I don't care what Michael Pachter thinks, and I don't think he should be published on here. This fella is the most obvious example of controversial for the sake of being controversial I've ever read. If you'd like I can come up with some random nonsense for you to publish, plus my surname is Parker, which is closely resembles Pachter.

I'll even change my Twitter profile to 'Industry Specialist'.
Posted 11:34 on 06 February 2014
Freekill's Avatar


Alright so maybe some publishers will be skeptical at first but all it takes is 1 person to take the dive for the rest to follow. Change is a good thing and a service like Playstation Now is a good change if it works as described :D.

I am not a fan of Patcher, he is always biased so it is hard for me to take him seriously!
Posted 02:46 on 06 February 2014
Jesus_Phish's Avatar

Jesus_Phish@ Geoff900

Few things on that.

First is that Onlive was very experimental for its time and didn't have much backing. It also went kind of big right out of the gate with a lot of games. By the look of things, Sony are going to just release some first party games before expanding out.

Second on Onlive is that Onlive required you to get additional hardware, either to plug into your tv or a controller to plug into your PC. If you have a PS4, you're already set to go. If you have a Sony TV yes you do need an additional PS3 controller, but you don't need a set top unit. While Sonys idea of streaming to tellys and tablet computers is nice, I can see that going on the backburner and the PS3/PS4 part of it being the focus.

Last is that news reports have pointed out that they are actually planning to put emulation of PS1 and PS2 games onto the PS4, meaning that Playstation Now will be kept for PS3 games. The PS3 processor is just too complicated to emulate for, which is why Playstation Now is essentially going to run on server farms made up of custom PS3 units.

And a lot of people who might of had a PS3 as their first console may not have ever played a lot of the older PS1/PS2 games and might not have access to playing them. Others might have long sold off their old consoles and collections as they just don't have the room to store them.
Posted 22:23 on 05 February 2014
francisjairam15's Avatar


I don't think it will be a joke. Usually this guy's predication's are wrong and some of them are right but he's being biased. When PlayStation Now comes out in action we will see how it will work.
Posted 21:14 on 05 February 2014
Dreamcaster's Avatar


Thanks Professor, I'm glad you're here to tell us these thing; Chewie take the Professor in back & plug him into the hyperdrive.....
Posted 17:32 on 05 February 2014
Geoff900's Avatar


He was referring to PlayStation now, which is a streaming service to play your old games, it is not PS+.

There are lot's of problems that they will face, high speed internet is needed and the vast majority of the US and Europe doesn't have those kind of connetions.

Onlive failed, hardly any one used it, and you had to have a very good connection to utilize it, otherwise it become pointless.

There other side of it, is why would you want to pay for a service or even use it, when you can just use your old PS1-2 and 3, and play games without the hassle of connection problems, latency etc.

Emulation is one thing, however this isn't emulation.
Posted 16:10 on 05 February 2014
Jaffa's Avatar


VG, please stop reporting what this idiot says, it's quite clear he doesn't have a clue. At least take the piss out of him a bit, this reads like a press release.
Posted 15:59 on 05 February 2014


Michael Pachter is a professional given a platform to voice his opinions and it pisses me off because he says stuff for the sake of being controversial to get hits. He should stick to his day job, because this is the ***** he spouts all the time.
Posted 15:54 on 05 February 2014
reynoldio's Avatar


He's completely right, all those PS1 and PS2 games that are less than 2 years old won't be available, it'll never work.
Posted 14:53 on 05 February 2014
DragonGuard666's Avatar


Can Pachter just piss off already?
Posted 14:35 on 05 February 2014
laticspieman's Avatar

laticspieman@ Jesus_Phish

Don't get me wrong I understand how Playstation Plus works with regard to it benefitting publishers in other ways aside from conventional purchases (such as DLC, Viral Marketing etc) ;) With Playstation Now though i believe its rumored that players will be able to rent individual games so from a third party perspective it sounds even more beneficial than plus as the games won't be posted as 'free' but actually have (an albeit small) price attached to them.
Posted 13:55 on 05 February 2014


I thought the main point of Playstation Now was to address the lack of backwards compatibility. Shouldn't analysts think for 5 seconds before they open their mouths?
Posted 13:36 on 05 February 2014
Jesus_Phish's Avatar

Jesus_Phish@ laticspieman

Companies usually do see profits from putting titles on PS+ as it results in people buying DLC or just talking about their game. The creator of Thomas Was Alone has stated he noticed a spike in PC sales when his game went on PS+ because PS3/Vita owners must have been telling their mates about the game and they went and bought it.

And also Sony pay the companies a sum of money.

I agree with you though, I think 3rd parties will embrace the idea of PS Now.
Posted 13:22 on 05 February 2014
JimmyNice's Avatar


Michael Pachter saying that the system won't work because publishers won't let games newer than 2 years old on it is like saying that Netflix will fail because it's only older movies and TV shows... which it IS... Maybe Michael should talk to the Blockbuster executives to see what they think of Playstation Now and if it will work.

Having the proper online infrastructure is why they bought Gaikai... they didn't spend all that money if it didn't work.
Posted 13:20 on 05 February 2014
View Full Site