PlayStation Now recommends 5Mbps connection

Sony recommends a 5Mb per second connection at minimum for using PlayStation Now, in order to make "the gameplay experience feel as if the game is being played locally."

34

Sony's PlayStation Now announcement finally gave us a better idea of its plans for the 2012 Gaikai acquisition. We found it ran pretty well on the CES show floor, but more details are now available regarding what you'll need at home to make the experience work.

Sony's official response to fan questions on the PlayStation.Blog revealed that the company recommends a minimum 5Mb per second connection. "In our internal tests, users with this bandwidth or greater have been enjoying a low latency, high-quality gaming experience," it stated. PS Now will test your connection and optimize for it, but they say 5/Mbps is ideal for making "the gameplay experience feel as if the game is being played locally on their device."

The Q&A also noted that you can rent a game through PS Now and then opt to buy and download the full version if you'd like. Since save files are stored with PSN's cloud service, you'll be able to switch back and forth with PS Now and full versions of the games without losing progress.

Sony has also opened a site to sign up for more information on the service, but has not yet detailed how to get into the closed beta launching later this month.

Editor-In-Chief
From The Chatty
  • reply
    January 8, 2014 11:15 AM

    Steve Watts posted a new article, PlayStation Now recommends 5Mbps connection.

    Sony recommends a 5Mb per second connection at minimum for using PlayStation Now, in order to make "the gameplay experience feel as if the game is being played locally."

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 11:26 AM

      Bit or byte?

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 11:37 AM

        its not 5 MEGs a second im sure... its like 800k a second i think

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 12:17 PM

          Unfortunately many companies say "megs" when talking about about megabits. Example: Comcast commercials :/

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 12:40 PM

            Makes sense since the networking world is all about bits per second.

            • reply
              January 8, 2014 12:53 PM

              But "megs" has traditionally been used to describe megabytes.

              • reply
                January 8, 2014 12:55 PM

                Or 1000 * 1000 in hard drive speak.

              • reply
                January 8, 2014 2:12 PM

                The general consensus is that network throughput is in Megabits, while storage is in Megabytes unless otherwise stated.

                • reply
                  January 8, 2014 2:31 PM

                  I'm not disagreeing with that - I'm saying megs meant megabytes but ISPs hijacked the term.

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 11:46 AM

        Mbps <- with lowercase b it is bits, so divide by 8 to get bytes per sec (so .625 MBps or 625KBps)...

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 11:56 AM

          The guy on the PS blog used MBPS with everything in caps. Seems kind of low but I'm sure like netflix, PSN, and other online services will run like shit on my 60Mbps connection.

          Also this naming convention is stupid there should be a better way to differentiate besides the capitalization of one letter.

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 2:14 PM

            I guess you could write out Megabit and Megabyte each time.

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 11:52 AM

        has to be bit

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 12:01 PM

          yeah. otherwise they're demanding a 40mbit connection and lol

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 12:14 PM

        Bits. It's lowercase b and it's talking about networking. Both those things mean bit instead of byte.

        Plus 5 Mbps sounds reasonable for streaming HD video while 5 MB/s is both a crazy requirement for current home connections and more bandwidth than most high end blu-rays use.

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 6:58 PM

        Generally when taking about Internet or WAN circuits.. it is almost always bits.

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 11:31 AM

      Playstation Then requires a 28.8k modem

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 11:38 AM

        Good thing I picked up that 56k K-Flex winmodem earlier!

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 11:49 AM

          man are you a fucking caveman or something? V.90 is the wave of the future.

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 11:51 AM

            I wanted to get ISDN but that was like $200/month!

      • reply
        January 8, 2014 12:15 PM

        I'm trying to figure out the old/slowest modem I ever used. I gotta ask the old man bcs he was the one who brought those crazy noise making machines home! I wanna say 2800 (not 28.8k). Was 2800 an actual standard?

        I know we had something before 9600

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 1:11 PM

          2400 baud was a very common speed in the late 80s. 28.8 was popular throughout the early 90s and 56.6 became the standard in the late 90s. They pretty much peaked the speed that a standard phone line could go at, though some companies tried to market 115200 modems, but none ever hit that theoretical speed and most companies focused more on compression and optimization onto 56.6 modems. (USrobotics X1 for example)

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 2:28 PM

          I had a 300 baud modem on my C64 - I was ballin' when I upgraded to the 1200.

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 3:53 PM

            I had a 300 baud logging onto GENIE and playing some Dungeons and Dragons type game FOR HOURS. I wish I could remember that game..

            • reply
              January 8, 2014 7:46 PM

              Might you be remembering an ASCII characters graphics based game called "The Island of Kesmai"? I used to play that using my apple IIe with 300 baud modem connected to compuserve in the mid 80s

              • reply
                January 8, 2014 8:30 PM

                I remember it being very addictive and costing me a small fortune in compuserve hourly charges

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 5:50 PM

            When I got my 1200baud, I lorded it over my pitiful peasant-like 300bauders for a good 3 months!

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 2:32 PM

          just modem I used was 14.4

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 2:33 PM

            just first

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 2:38 PM

            That's 14.4K, however. 14,400 bps, as compared to 2400bps. My first modem was 2400.

            • reply
              January 8, 2014 3:14 PM

              Same here! I was so excited when we finally got a 14.4k modem.

              • reply
                January 8, 2014 3:54 PM

                I was on a 14.4 until 1999 :(

                • reply
                  January 8, 2014 4:31 PM

                  33.6 until 2005 for me. Rural woo.

          • reply
            January 8, 2014 9:26 PM

            First one I used was a 300bps external modem for my C64. No joke.

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 2:37 PM

          our first was a hayes brand 2400 baud modem. the modem was built into the wall wort:

          http://www.ebay.com/itm/HAYES-MODEM-2400-MODEL-3110US-PRODIGY-KIT-2400-BAUD-MODEM-VINTAGE-COLLECTORS-NR-/161188171917

          and based on that ebay text, now i understand why we had this one. it came with Prodigy. we had Prodigy. now it all makes sense. i was like 6 at the time so i didn't know, i just knew Prodigy had an Indiana Jones game which i thought was cool and wasn't on the expensive subscription tier

        • reply
          January 8, 2014 9:37 PM

          Our gateway 2000 386sx had a 2400 baud modem in it in 1992. Bbs and prodigy for dos were lightning fast baby!

      • gmd legacy 10 years mercury mega
        reply
        January 8, 2014 12:15 PM

        When will then be now?

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 11:58 AM

      Wonder if they really want a min upload speed too? Not that the client would be spending a lot of data back to the server, but speed and latency might make a difference.

      • reply
        January 9, 2014 1:35 AM

        Well, the minimum upload speed has to be the same as the receiving ends download speed surely?

        • reply
          January 9, 2014 5:30 AM

          Why? you're only sending input data, you're receiving an a/v stream in return. (assuming you mean bandwidth, not latency)

          • reply
            January 9, 2014 5:57 AM

            The client (the receiving end) needs 5Mbps in, the server (PS4) needs 5Mbps out. surely?

            upload needed from the client should be quite low though.

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 11:59 AM

      Not to mention that 5 down will mean that households are going to want to get into the 20+ tiers. 5 for this, 5-7 or higher for Netflix and some extra for other devices in the house.

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 12:11 PM

      Seems reasonable. Also is hope that if services like this become popular telecoms will prioritize reducing latency in their networks. I'm excited!

    • reply
      January 8, 2014 8:41 PM

      [deleted]

      • reply
        January 9, 2014 1:33 AM

        Bandwidth limits like that are starting to become more widespread sadly, and there's various efforts pushing back against them. Many ISPs are advertising "no limits" explicitly for this reason. More importantly though, there are various legal wranglings trying to get bandwidth limits ruled as illegal on the basis of either common carrier or net neutrality. Sony promoting a service that, as you say, will easily run afoul of these limits strikes me as an indicator that they've thrown their hat in with the pro-net neutrality camp, which would be great news.

Hello, Meet Lola