Sorry that was my fault, I should have said in the fist place I was referring to that
games over three years for Amazon and 384 games over three for Sky which was where the figures came from.
(edited - Amazon have 60 games, not 90.)
Was the £90m for all the games over three seasons or the per season price. It wasn't exactly clear in the articles I read. £1.5m per game sounds about right, especially when half those games are simulcast and arguably not games that would usually be chosen by broadcasters.
I think it's fair to say their Premier League efforts have been received far better than when they started their tennis coverage with the US Open, which was difficult to find, difficult to navigate, had poor picture quality and anchored by a virtual unknown. The question for Amazon is whether they look at pure money or prestige - I can't see this having much impact on Prime subscriptions in it's current format, but doing the job well for three years might make it worth them bidding for season long contracts which would encourage subscriptions, though there is the danger then that either they'll lump sport together as a premium subscription or Prime will see it's price increased to pay for it, a price which I think has been fixed for quite sometime.
From the Premier League's point of view they'll almost certainly add more rounds where all matches are available - they could easily add two rounds now they have the split weekend, and also the final days matches, which really should have been made all available a long time ago. Whether the PL sell them on a round by round basis or split them remains to be seen.
I preferred the internet when it had a sense of humour.