You seem to have missed the meaning of my question. To try an analogy, your statement is equivalent to: 'The problem comes when people who are philanthropists understand that robbing others is a good way to make money.'

A reasonable assumption is that someone who supports DRM-free understands the value in DRM-free, be it at the theoretical level or at the market level (people would pay for it). The question is, why do you think people would ignore that understanding and go for a solution that doesn't relate in any way to DRM-free? How many people do you think feel that streaming is in any way a substitute for DRM-free?

Good story, pal. Thanks for sharing ;)

The problem with bringing DRM into discussion, is this service is more like netflix, rather than Steam's pseudo ownership.
I use Netflix, and have absolutely no presumption to have ownership of any of the content.

Sure its bloody annoying when they remove a show that your children love watching repeatedly, but its understandable. Opposed to Steams restrictions which are not.

Could this tech threaten DRM free gaming. Only after people stop buying films.

Console gamers like to own their games, Microsoft U-Turn on account locking games with the XBox One (eighty) is living proof of this. I'd be seriously surprised the next gen console where media-less.

And the PC Master Race (typed with so much destain my keyboard melted) would not want to give up on its bragging rights. What use is buying a £2000 rig, if the game looks identical on a £150 NUC.

This kind of service, just like NetFlix, is supplemental. It would take a dramatic shift in buying habits for it ever to take over traditional ownership.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but console have had DRM in one form or another since the days of the NES.

PS Now and Steam are both subscription services

PS Now offers you access to library of games, which you have no license ownership off, for a monthly fee.
Steam offers a DRM validation and download service to a library of games which you do own the licenses, for no monthly fee.

While I fully agree Steam, and other stores sell you the licenses. Regardless to where you purchased the game it is the Steam subscribed service that allows you to download the games and validates the DRM.

VALVes subscription model allows them to implement policies and conditions that are not set by the publisher and contradict the rights given by the publisher via the purchased license.

Waving a list of the small minority of DRM free games does not counter the absolute fact that VALVe (and yes GoG) are subscription services. Nor does it mitigate how VALVe misuses its power.

As I've always said, you own your license, but VALVe owns the keys.

...? I mean, there were 60 FPS titles on the PS3, and when I first heard of the service I thought those titles would be capped at 30 when streaming them. So, not sure what you meant by that.

After beating Last of US yesterday, I've tried a few other games which worked equally well... That said, I think I already got everything I wanted out of PSNow. Heh. If I hadn't played all three Uncharted games before I might have actually paid for at least a month. Sure, there are some interesting games on the service like Ni No Kuni and Eternal Sonata, but they're not exactly must-play titles for me. *shrug* Either way, I had a good experience with the short time I used it.

Just meant that your experience with PSNOW was pretty cool, that's all. Picture myself playing Ninja Gaiden Sigma with my x360 controller on a huge ass tv without a ps device... damn. A man can dream! :P
*non-us citizen sobs* ;(

.
.
720p would look lousy on your "huge ass TV." You don't get 1080p on Playstation Now. You also get to play 4- to 10-year-old games only. Who knows how many years before we see newer PS4 games. And there are often connection problems from the Playstation network, likely due to heavy traffic from all the new PC users. Ignore the early reviews that said connection was fine. Those reviewers were probably using it when PC users were first allowed and traffic was still low. Annoyingly, you get automatically disconnected in 30 seconds if the connection is slow, and you lose your game progress due to no fault of your own, but their lousy network quality. This is like Youtube's or Netflix's early days when there were frequent buffering issues, which were tolerable for watching a 2-hour movie. But a game needs considerably more hours to play, so frequent network issues could be a big problem. And this is all for a cut-rate console experience too. Consoles are already inferior to PCs to begin with. Here you don't even get true console experience, but a cut-rate one that has old games, connection problems, no 1080p and some in-game features too.

Thought I let anyone know who is currently using PSNow that they are cutting support for it to only PS4 and PC. PS Vita, PS3 and everything else that was able to use PSNow will no longer be unable to access that service come auguest this year, essentially Sony is telling you to buy new stuff and trash the old.

PSNow wouldn't be as bad if you could also play online through PSNow but you'll also need PS Plus to do that although Microsoft it going to be doing the same. What boggles my mind is if people are so dirt poor and want to play games they go as cheap as possible but completely skip pirating, yet here Sony thinks these poor people manage to pay for fiber internet while living on welfare...

Humm but for the price it's pretty ok, right? I mean, it's not for the usual "I'm hungry for dat quality" guy, I assume.
Saw some gameplay online and I was indeed pleased but yep, not for purists. It's streamable and it's kinda early but I'd give it a go for sure, if I could ;P

Network issues might be the biggest concern there. Gotta be a pain to be disconnected from a game, my lord!

Spot on.
There's gotta be a more viable option, eh?

There have been connection problems for the last few days now: http://downdetector.com/status/playstation-network

And yet PSN's status page still shows everything is okay: https://status.playstation.com/en-US/

Since I've been getting disconnects the last few days, it looks like they do have a problem, which their own status page can't even show correctly.

I'm really hesitant to pay $99.99 a year for this service after my trial is over. Better wait a while to see if they will ever fix their network. The $19.99/month and $44.99/3 months plans are both not worthwhile to me.