By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
BMaker11 on 01 August 2014
Edit Thread
kowenicki said:
BMaker11 said:
kowenicki said:


So sony only has the resource, power and tech of Onlive?  Gotcha.

I dont realise, thanks for filling me in.  In that case...you are right, they best stick to an unattractive pricing strructure to limit take up.

Spoken like someone who clearly hasn't tried PSNow. I was in the private beta. There were some compression artifacts in some of the games, but nothing as crappy as "playing PS3 on a standard definition 480p tv". But for the most part, they looked good at 720p. In fact, the only game that looked sub par was Way of the Samurai 3.....and the game looks crappy on native hardware, so I'm not even going to hold it against that.

And the input was great, other than when there was a hiccup (like when once in a while, a Netflix video will hiccup and drop to like 384p, but then shoots back up to 1080p). Framerate was smooth as well. 

You'd know that if you actually tried it. But I guess you're just being you.


So.. they can afford a robust service. Good. (Might be under a bit more stress with a million or two hammering it at once mind you - but I digress)

Now, if they backtrack and offer a decent priced sub service... what then?  Will you be happy? Or, as an obvious sony fan, be angry that they are risking profits and ultimatetly service and your playstation future?

I'm perpexed by your stance.

You say they cant offer that service at a reasonable price, its impossible due to infrastructure costs, so if they do...?  what then? 

In other words... do you want/would you welcome a sub service for $10 or $15 per month or not?

Oh man....you're gonna go in any which direction to try and spin it negatively, aren't you?  

I don't care about them risking profits. As long as my experience is good, then I am fine. You are still stuck on the price being unreasonable, but I and several other people have shown you that the pricing is actually on par or better than current other rental services. Just because it's not the Netflix model doesn't mean it it's bad. 

I would much rather pay $8 and get a game for a week, then get a hard copy for $14 a week. I would much rather pay $20 and get 2 games for a month instantly, than pay $23 a month for 2 games (out at a time) and have to wait on shipping and possibly not be able to get the games I want due to limited supply. I especially would prefer that if I was someone without a PS3. What's unreasonable about that other than "It's Sony. So it's bad"?

You keep saying "$10-15 a month" is the "reasonable price" for a subscription model and it would be brilliant.....yet you also tried to use OnLive to refute me, which is burning through cash to support a measly 1800 concurrent users with a $8 subscription, and the experience is shitty to boot. Obviously your "reasonable price" of $10 ain't good enough (unless you think $2 is the difference maker (between OnLive's $8 and your proposed $10)). 

If Sony offered a $10 subcription, though, and the experience was good, I'd totally welcome it. But it also means they are taking losses elsewhere, which ultimately still affect me. So actually, I don't know if I'd welcome it. I don't care about their profits (PS3 was in the red for m ost of it's life), but if the costs > the revenue with a $10 sub, and they start having to take cuts elsewhere (halting development on new IPs for example), well, I think my "Playstation future" trumps old titles.