$1700/yr is 12 hours of gaming each day at $0.40/hr, which is more than the $0.24 you’d actually be paying. Nobody gaming that much would otherwise be spending $100/yr on games in any case.
This is a very stupid thing for the industry, but your numbers are hyperbolic and anti-useful.
They’ll average $1700/year to play the fucking games they already spent $100 to borrow indefinitely? Fuck, gaming sounds so stupid now.
$1700/yr is 12 hours of gaming each day at $0.40/hr, which is more than the $0.24 you’d actually be paying. Nobody gaming that much would otherwise be spending $100/yr on games in any case.
This is a very stupid thing for the industry, but your numbers are hyperbolic and anti-useful.
Let’s say you play a game that costs 40c to stream, and it’s every day for a year; it will be ~400$
For 2-3 hours per day is what you mean I guess?
Because 400 is pretty close to the amount of days in a year, meaning you would have a bit more than a buck per day.
Yeah, and the shit is that it is 0.24 to 0.40, not just 0.24
If you refer to the article, it’s price tiering. You would be consistently paying $0.24.
“Indefinitely”, huh? They can just rent it forever? Sounds like a missed opportunity for shareholders, I bet we can get that line even higher