What do you mean by that? PSNow could stream high end PC games if Sony wanted it to.

They aren't at all, the point was to represent the number of users with current technology, whether you have a processor, RAM, etc per user or X amount of processing power it doesn't matter you still need that much power for that many users and the costs are static in that moment in time.

Your network still costs a billion dollars for 3 million PS4/cloud gamers today, my cost estimates are actually bang on, because they're based on an example of PS4 technology, obviously I can't say how much the PS5 equivalent would be, but it's the same deal, you still have X amount of performance needed for each gamer.

As for your latency comment, servers are still miles from each gamer, the lag will never compare to the lower latency of having your physical box in your house, that's a fact no one can get around, it's another issue that makes this very unappealing to the very audience that games on consoles now.

I meant from a cost point of view, see I said "viable" ;) , this has to make Sony or any company that wants to do it money.

Technologically it's just a server, but PS Now uses PS3 technology, because it's cheap for them to make to build their server farms out of.

Of course Sony could make farms of GTX 980 i7 PCs for a modern high end NVidia style GRID network if they wanted, but it would be too costly and it's doubtful they've make their money back from such a huge investment.

Ok, fair enough. What I personally think Sony will do is invest as PSNow grows and creates its own profit. We're talking about an audience hundreds of times bigger than any console audience. I'd say in 2 - 3 years time we'll see a few older PS4 games launching on PSNow. This retains the selling power of PS4 games on disc/PSN and offers further incentive for the 'new' audiences who subscribe to PSNow through phones, pads, laptops, TVs or Blu-rays.

Except it's not right.

So you're trying to argue against something you really don't quite understand?

It's simple, the servers cost a lot of money, they have to be paid for, the console model basically sells all of those machines on day one of launch and doesn't require a broadband network to allow people to play their games.

The cloud would basically take them months or longer to pay for the hardware in the servers.

Hence why I say it's not really economically viable as a sole solution for a console gaming platform. A supplementary system doesn't cost anywhere near as much and you still have the robust nature of a physical console sitting under your TV at home or wherever you game, plus you can use a tablet or phone to maybe game on as well, the physical console could also act as a part of a wider cloud network for Sony and other gamers.

Where is it even a good deal investing into a subscription anyways? This blueray player costs 80$, the ps4 controller yes they only let you use the ps4 one, costs 55$. Thats a 135$, a ps3 costs you 190-220$.

i would defeniatly choose the physical hardware and games over a stream, its really not that much more money and gives so much more benefits and saving you a lot of money in the long run. 

Because millions of people don't and never will buy a gaming console. They will however by a Blu-ray player.

I agree for the most part, except I don't think PS4 games will come to PS Now until PS5 releases, although I think with Sony using X86/PC Processing architecture PS4 games will probably run on PS5 natively, whether you use a disc or just transfer your downloaded game to your PS5, because the architecture probably won't prohibit that happening.

A wider Playstation ecosystem does seem like a great thing for Sony from a profit POV and a real reason why Playstation could become a bigger part of Sony as time goes on.

PS Now for legacy content, with everything from PS1, 2, 3, PSP and Vita running through that, as a subscription based system, would be very cheap in the future, especially compared to a system made to run only 9th gen games.

The premium 9th gen console experience will continue to be a physical piece of hardware, just like this gen, options are the future, not limiting people into only using the cloud for everything.

Having physical hardware out in the wild, connected to a router means that can actually do what remote play does now with vita and Sony smartphones, except Sony doesn't have to foot the bill for internet bandwidth and they still give gamers that flexibility on the move gaming experience.

The used game industry is you and me....

I'd say we're more or less on the same page then. I think consoles and PSNow can happily coexist for many more years simply because they cater for two different audiences. The problem with understanding PSNow is that Sony are obviously using PS branded hardware to promote it at the moment but that's isn't the audience PSNow is ultimately for. It's for those people who would not buy a console but may try something if it was available to them through other devices.