PS3 exclusives soon playable. http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2016/08/24/sony-playstation-now-pc-port/1
Various reasons. First, space: a PS3 and 400 games takes up a lot more room than your existing desktop, laptop, or Windows tablet. Second, cost: a PS3 and 400 games costs a lot more than a year's membership to PS Now. Third, accessibility: your PS3 is going to need a TV, whereas your PC already has a monitor - and you can play your laptop in bed, on the bog, or even in the bath if you've got a sufficiently sturdy shelf across it (but probably not the shower.) Fourth: what if, like me, you had a PS3 and the bleedin' thing died on you? It'd probably put you off buying another one, right? Especially a second-hand one of unknown provenance. Horses for courses, innit. There are plenty of situations where an all-you-can-eat streaming service makes sense; there are plenty of situations where it does not. You might as well ask someone who subscribes to Netflix on their PC why they don't just buy a dirt cheap DVD player. Used DVDs are even cheaper than used PS3 games, after all...
Sony could really do with negotiating with Rockstar to get Red Dead Redemption added to the PS Now service, that's one of the few games that would make me consider subscribing.
This has my attention. Would love to play Wipeout HD for one. Edit: Turns out Wipeout isn't on the list of Playstation Now games. Aside of the Killzone trilogy, there are no games that interest me, so it's a no go.
PS Now is perfect for me. But no Asia launch date makes me a sad sad man. Since it's all remotely rendered latency is ultra-critical. 1) The wife will complain it's another thing to own, even though a PS3 would be a nice media player as well. But then why buy a PS3 when PS4 Slim is right around the corner? etc 2) It's a PITA to get the time to find + buy one, and get the games I want, and then worry about in what condition etc. I only want to play them once, so it would be a PITA to sell them after. It's just not happening now I have young kids. 3) The kids use the TV. I could use my monitor I guess, but I don't have space on the desk I share with the wife. It's all business. 4) The wife will complain ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ that it's something I bought that wasn't for family, regardless of how much it was. So no GTX 1070 for me. PS Now service is lowkey to happy marriage.
You should have fixed your PS3. My launch 60gb (now 500gb) has died 4 times. The first 3 times I spot heated the processor and gpu with a heatgun and that worked for a while but the last time I baked the mobo in the oven for 10 minutes and its been fine for more than a year now.
I still own it, it just doesn't work. It's not a massive loss, to be honest: I own exactly three games for it, have finished two and don't care about the third. I do miss the better DLNA media playback functionality compared to the PS4 I bought to replace it, though. And the fact it could play Red Book audio, LIKE EVERY OTHER CD-BASED CONSOLE RELEASED IN THE HISTORY OF EVER SONY YOU CHEAP BUGGERS YOU. Ahem.
I own precisely one SACD, and I have no idea where it is. The only music I listen to these days is ripped to 320KB/s MP3s.
Back on topic: The PS Now catalogue is at least 90% complete dross. Unfortunately for me the remaining 10% are games that I have already played, because they were actually worth buying or they turned up through PS Plus when it was still good. For the annual cost of £155.88 I think most PC owners would be much better off just going wild in the Steam sale.
