"There is no publisher that is going to license content that’s less than two-years old"

So... it's a non-issue?

The opposite of 240fps would be -240fps that's really bad performance!

What he may have meant was that some games may have run internally at 240fps (ie the machine would render that much is the TV could display them...) now the dev who said that probably had a very simple project going on...

As an example the PS4 demo , Dark Sorcerer, put out by Quantic Dream was said to run at around 90 frames per second in some areas, obviously the game will not display above 60 when you see it on TV, but the engine can do much more... but just a frame rate number thrown out without proper context means nothing, the PS2 could pull 240 fps if the game is simple enough... 

As for PS Now, I doubt it will be a very interesting service, I would much rather either play my old PS1/2 games with proper emulation and keep my PS3 until remakes of my favorites are available (with improved image quality and frame rates)!

PS+ says hi

where to get cheap Hulu+ gift cards for PS3 ?

Well at least Pachter won't jinx PS Now anymore by claiming it will be a smashing success XD

Does this guy ever get it right?

IMO Playstatio now will work just like PS plus(maybe integrated?).New games will not be part of the service, just the 1+ years old games.

This. 

PS Now success will depend heavily on content available and the pricing model consumers will be offered.

To me, a subscription service is a non-starter. Subscriptions translate to give us money forever.

But, if I can buy streaming games and stream them infinitely I am interested.

Pick a number from 1 to 6. Roll a die.