bugrimmar said:
1. 4 games = useless info. 2. Sony has failed and succeeded = useless info. The fact that they have failed counters your entire argument in the first place. 3. BD is the standard medium = useless info. So what? I was merely pointing out that Sony is more than willing to use old technology. 4. Sony hasn't released all the details = correct, but that counters your entire argument, stating that Playstation Now is going to be great, since YOU DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS. Seriously, you're like a machine going round and round in circles. A little logic would be nice from time to time yknow? Nevermind. Sorry I responded again, I just couldn't help needing to clarify your intense error in judgment. I'll stop now. |
Jesus guy, you asked why it was different than Onlive and he told you.
1. Games: He is saying that because Sony has such a large games library and has good relationships with other publishers the chances that it will have a good library are alot better. Seeing as how the games they have announced are pretty desirable games it's a good inditacor of things to come.
2. He is saying that it is less likely that Sony will fail than ONlive because they have the resources and have had the time to make sure it works. Which if the first impressions are anything to go by (along with impressions of Gaikai) than it works and will only continue to improve as the infastructure is built up.
3. He was saying that the tech for streaming games has improved and that they are probably not using the old OUTDATED tech that Onlive uses. BD might be old but it isn't outdated.
4. The info we do have it promising so it looks like the service will be really cool. We have more reason to be positive about PSNow than we do to be negative.
He made perfect sense, don't be such a tool.
Bet with Adamblaziken:
I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.







