By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mr Puggsly said:
DerNebel said:
Mr Puggsly said:


Sony isn't much better. They're pushing digital sales because it benefits them, you lose access to game if you cancel your PS+ subscription, it cost money to play games online, they mocked EA Access because it didn't benefit PS+, and PS Now is looking like a cash grab.

Nobody is more sly than Sony. They're doing the same things as MS without getting the criticism.

I suppose you know what streaming those games costs Sony?

How much does streaming Netflix cost? Who cares? Some people spend many, many hours streaming Netflix every month and pay a measly $9. And that includes content!

With OnLive, when you purchase a game you own it digitally on Steam and can stream your library of games for $8 a month.

Sony is probably more concerned about covering the cost of Gaikai than the price of streaming games.


This was already debunked on the PSNow thread... Kowen was pushing the same point, but when presented that the $8/month put OnLive on incredible debt even when having games with terrible lag and quality issues for a small public.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."