By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
SpokenTruth said:
DonFerrari said:

In none of these services you have to pay twice, first to have the content and second to access it.

That's because none of them are rendering video games at 4K @ 60 fps. That's one hell of a big difference from just streaming a song or video file.

But if you want to go that route, Sony and MS do it.  You buy the hardware and then the game.  For Google, you are leasing access to their data center hardware and then you buy the game.

Further, you pay Sony or MS (or both for some of you) for monthly access to their network and then still buy games. Why don't you get all games for free, Don?  Hell, you bought a $400 console, paid $60 per year to access their network and you still buy the games. 

Youtube have 4k60fps for free, Netflix have a more expensive version that have 4k and also 4 simultaneous login.

People have been  buying HW since forever and mine are still good to use a decade after purchase, so it end up being less expensive, don't need internet subs, don't have any lag and I can use without internet.

I don't pay for MP, I don't play MP. PS+ I have been paying for a extra layer of save data backup, plenty of free great games and aggressive discounts on some older games. So nearly not the same thing.

If you want to fork your money to google and is so happy to defend them all the power to you. I very much preffer my Hardcopy collection.



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."