| wilco said: I just can't see this as the kind of thing you could use to promote a console. Exclusive game, yes, but a subscription service that allows you to play old games? That doesn't really sound like a sexy system seller to me. Atleast not enough to make MS fork up some cash for the privelege, and to even fork up enough cash to keep it off PC as well. I'm fuzzy on the details but if this is a streaming service it would be more difficult on the 360 do to its lack of RAM, so maybe that is why its not coming there. If MS did pay for this then that was an incredibly dumb move. You really think EA would refuse to put this service on a console? They have to put it somewhere and consoles are their bread and butter. If both sony and MS refused to pay you really think EA would just scrap it? No, they'd put it on the platform because they'd make more money off sales than whatever the platform holders would have paid. I think Sony just genuinely refused to allow the service on their system just like they said. |
No, not a system seller but a benefit. Like the PS3 being more expensive last gen but not paying for online when you had to on Xbox was a benefit. Simple things can help overall, else they would not have removed the ever so important Kinect. Maybe it would be more difficult on 360 but isn't PS Now is meant to work on a Bravia TV, how much ram do TVs have?
But like you say and many have now, lack of the service on PC is odd. You may be right on the other points regardless.
Hmm, pie.
