They said 2018, so I was taking it as January 1st, 2018.

There were two different models, one offered for 600 bucks and the other one offered for 500, but since you mentioned the retrocompatibility aspect, only found on the 600-bucks model, I thought you were mainly referring to that one.

I think it really depends on how much they think will profit.If buying 10 dollars a share today and in 2 years that same shares will be worth 3,4 or even 5 times more, I think they are willing to wait that long.Of course that they constantly buy and sell stocks, but most investors most likely invest in multiple companies at once, and probably has short term plans for some, and long term plans for others.But Im no specialist on how the market works and when is the right time to buy stocks, so thats as far as my guesses go

I thought some new info came out and I missed it. Had I felt more confident, I would have just ignored you. My bad.

Let's be honest. Gamers used to downplay PSN saying that Live was superior because it was paid, that you got what you paid for. People also voted with the wallet, if gamers had flocked to the PS3, MS would probably had made theirs free too.

But since free online not only sees pointless to get consumers while giving you a bad rep, why not profit like crazy?

I guess people simply don't care. It's 50 bucks a year, it really is hard to see it make anyone jump ship.

I always said that paid PS+ would result in 2 things: the service would not improve anyway and the "free" games would be worse (before they had to convince you to pay, offering better games). 100% spot on.

The only improvement PS+ had was increasing the cloud save limit. But that only happened because PS4 saves are dozens of MB (PS3 was always under 1MB), so the previous limit could not hold more than a dozen saves.

I think you may be forgetting that Sony's Game & Network Services Division has essentially been their only profitable one for years. Sony has only recently become profitable, and it is much harder for them to make huge net income numbers than it is for Nintendo. While Sony's PlayStation has often propped up the finances of the entire corporation, Nintendo's success with the Switch is the majority of their revenue (at least going forward).

That is how it should work. But we (or at least I) know that most of time it have people that generate an early move to "manipulate" the market and then benefit on it. In that way we get a lot of bubbles and depressions on the stocks.

If stocks market were really based on future gain of said company and value of it, there wouldn't happen so many fluctuations. It is almost a legalized gambling.

Yep it was written on the floor.

Yay? I mean when you have tens of millions of people paying 60 bucks a year for online access I imagine they would make more.

So? And?

Don't Care? Don't enter the thread.