| kowenicki said: just "yes" would have done. so you see a sub model as more atttractive and would welcome it. we got there in the end. thanks.
|
Talk about selective reading. "It also means taking losses somewhere else, which ultimately still affects me. So, actually, I don't know if I would welcome it."
"If the costs > revenue with a $10 sub, and they start taking cuts elsewhere (halting developments of new IPs for example), well, I think my "Playstation future" trumps old titles (implying that I wouldn't like the $10 sub)"
But, read what you want to, I guess. Put words in my mouth about "a subscription being more attractive and would welcome it", completely ignoring that I just said I don't like a $10 subscription, the little standard you were talking about. I don't like your proposal, because it would definitely impact negatively elsewhere. For the right price, where Sony could still operate properly and not take losses.....that would be more attractive. But don't just blanket statement "you said a subscription would be more attractive and would welcome it" just to say "see, I was right" when you have very detailed specifics that I objected to.
You like the Netflix model, like everyone else. Ok, let me do what you just did: "Kowenicki thinks the subscription model is attractive and would welcome it. $5 a month for 240p max video quality is something he'd like".
Now, you actually believe the $8 is a good price (the "right price" for a supposed PSNow sub), and you get good quality videos (good quality streaming games). But because "the subscription model is attractive and you'd welcome it" (something you/I inferred from having subs period), any price and any shit quality is something you'd happily go with (lower quality experience due to cheap prices).
That's what you just did to me.
