Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- From: Zomoniac <the_proper_one@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 13:58:07 +0000
On 2010-03-11 13:50:43 +0000, "Paul Evans" <paul.evans913@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Chris Whitworth" <usenet.chris@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:slrnhphin8.ru9.usenet.chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8556874.stm
10quid a month, and you have to pay for the games on top. Even if you live
somewhere with a fast enough net connection that's close enough to the servers
that the lag is acceptable, it's still cheaper (over a couple of years) to buy
a console instead. Genius.
(and it's only going to get worse for them, as processing power decreases in
cost way faster than bandwidth)
Gamertag/Steam ID: parm PSN: PopeWiggles
"Back when I was young, we had to travel back in time to put the tape in so
the game would load before we died."
This is a publisher's wet dream. Make the consumer buy games they'll never own, and make them pay again every month to access them on hardware they also have to pay for. I'll bet Ubisoft and Activision are kicking themselves for not thinking of this first.
The future of gaming, where the consumer has zero control. And we thought Activision and Ubisoft were greedy, arrogant cunts.
Then you best get saving your £3k for a PC that will run Crysis 2 on high detail.
This is absolutely no different to a MMORPG, but everyone seems fine with that. You buy a game, pay a monthly sub to use someone else's computer to play it, and if they go under you can't play the game you bought. 11m+ WoW subscribers seem to suggest that people are quite happy with this model.
- Prev by Date: Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- Next by Date: Re: Playstation Move
- Previous by thread: Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console
- Next by thread: Re: OnLive - more expensive than a console