Sony Boss: Don't "Shove Something Down a Consumer's Throat"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I had a big long response here before, but I'm getting rid of it.

There are a few things I hate about internet discourse. One is the reliable appearance of the contrarian, the man or woman who comes down on the minority side of even the most cut-and-dry issues as a means to appear independent or insightful.

Another is the constant deployment of false equivalency. In this situation, you're not bringing anything meaningful to a discussion when you "remind" people (who are already very well aware of the fact) that Sony is also a greedy business after all of your dollars. It's the same thing you see in threads about Valve or any other company who happens to be earning goodwill by giving consumers what they want (or not forcing upon them what they don't).

It's like we can't judge the highly varied actions of two people or two companies if they happen to share the same goal. It's fucking insanity. Why not expand it to all people as well? Everyone is seeking what they perceive to be fulfillment or happiness, right? So why judge a person who steals and cheats and generally fucks other people to get what they want any more than a person who plays by the rules and treats others with respect?

I don't think anyone has ever debated the motivations of any of these companies. Detractors and supporters are pointing at specific behavior and its impact on others. Yes, Sony executives go to sleep in the same filthy pile of money as Microsoft executives. If someone wants to begrudge them their profit motives, by all means, feel free. But that doesn't invalidate more nuanced appraisals of how those executives went about obtaining those piles. Insisting upon the equivalency at all times is reductive to the point of oblivion. We'd eventually have fuck-all to talk about here.

Legion:
They were planning the launch since 2008 and nobody thought it was a good idea to suggest revealing what the console looked like upon it's announcement? That's kind of worrying really.

If Microsoft hadn't screwed their announcement up people would still be mocking the PS4's original announcement to this day.

They didn't say they were planning it's look.

Just saying. :p

FieryTrainwreck:
I had a big long response here before, but I'm getting rid of it.

There are a few things I hate about internet discourse. One is the reliable appearance of the contrarian, the man or woman who comes down on the minority side of even the most cut-and-dry issues as a means to appear independent or insightful.

Another is the constant deployment of false equivalency. In this situation, you're not bringing anything meaningful to a discussion when you "remind" people (who are already very well aware of the fact) that Sony is also a greedy business after all of your dollars. It's the same thing you see in threads about Valve or any other company who happens to be earning goodwill by giving consumers what they want (or not forcing upon them what they don't).

It's like we can't judge the highly varied actions of two people or two companies if they happen to share the same goal. It's fucking insanity. Why not expand it to all people as well? Everyone is seeking what they perceive to be fulfillment or happiness, right? So why judge a person who steals and cheats and generally fucks other people to get what they want any more than a person who plays by the rules and treats others with respect?

I don't think anyone has ever debated the motivations of any of these companies. Detractors and supporters are pointing at specific behavior and its impact on others. Yes, Sony executives go to sleep in the same filthy pile of money as Microsoft executives. If someone wants to begrudge them their profit motives, by all means, feel free. But that doesn't invalidate more nuanced appraisals of how those executives went about obtaining those piles. Insisting upon the equivalency at all times is reductive to the point of oblivion. We'd eventually have fuck-all to talk about here.

Still responding to it.

"The publishers are hanging by a thread. They're pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into a failing business model. They're in danger of extinction, which is why they're resorting to all kinds of draconian measures for control. Don't conflate an industry-wide collapse (which will only happen when people lose interest in video games) with a few big fish collapsing under the weight of their own mismanagement and incompetence."

You fail to notice how integral publishers are to consoles.

Do you have any idea how consoles would survive without publishers? No, you don't. You rather post hopeful rhetoric that somehow it all turns out fine and how nothing can touch consoles.

Console development costs are high, too high for any non-publisher dev.

No publishers = no funding.

No funding = no console games.

No console games = consoles are dead.

So failing and dead publishers? Dead and failing consoles. Publishers are integral to the market or a reason. History is littered with dead consoles from "big companies" way back when only to die. Sony and Microsoft are nothing special in history.

"But you need the install base, too. It's a delicate balance. If MS had pushed forward and secured, say, 40% of the market to Sony's 60%, that would have given enough of an install base for publishers to favor MS and push those restrictive policies towards default status. If the numbers are painting more of an 80/20 split in favor of Sony, suddenly the extra money you make off DRM (mostly theoretical at this point, mind you) doesn't make up for the limited install base. The preorder numbers were obviously showing a drastic, unsustainable disparity. MS and their publishing partners realized they weren't going to be able to tip the scales, so they had to relent."

Since there there is no publisher competition, you either deal with their DRM or get out. A console with no games won't have an install base at all soon enough, its been proven time and time again. An argument you found obvious, so you just conceded your own point. Why WOULDN'T they add DRM? They are the only ones in town, anything they say goes.

"Why did MS reverse course then?"

To use less obvious DRM, just like sony did. DRM will happen either way.

"Did you mistake a pay-to-win game for free-to-play?"

Pay to Win? Doesn't matter what its status is, Sony did the same shady ethics everyone else did. Even if players hated it, and they did, Sony didn't exactly lower prices. In fact, they increased them. "listening to what gamers want" doesn't seem to always apply now does it?

So where is any of the hope in your old arguments? Everything circles back to publishers controlling everything and if they die, the consoles go with them.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh yes lets not shove things down consumers throats.

Unless its rip off micro transactions in F2P MMOs like 20$ guns, because those are obviously not the same thing. /sarcasm

Sony isn't doing anyone a favor or trying to defend gaming. Its only going to pretend to. Sony is in too deep to have a change of heart now. To much demand from the industry to follow its mentality as well.

If sony is defending gaming, it actions aren't showing it. They follow the same waves the industry does.

Oh, wait a moment. You also noticed that Sony relies heavily on 3rd party support? Took me far too long to notice how much publishers have been screwing us over through Sony. I felt dirty that day. T^T

Ultratwinkie:
You fail to notice how integral publishers are to consoles.

The only thing integral to this industry is the consumer. It's a luxury/entertainment industry. If we want games, someone will make them. You seem to think of the publishers in terms of Rand's irreplaceable producers. They aren't. They're arguably less important than they've ever been.

Do you have any idea how consoles would survive without publishers? No, you don't. You rather post hopeful rhetoric that somehow it all turns out fine and how nothing can touch consoles.

I don't really care about consoles. I like to play games. If the console model isn't sustainable, I'll play games on my PC. If fewer games are made, or lesser games, those will become my options. If no one is making games, I'll start making my own to fill that void - and I'll probably make a mint doing so.

But to answer your question: XBL/PS Store. Those platforms make money for MS and Sony.

Console development costs are high, too high for any non-publisher dev.

No publishers = no funding.

No funding = no console games.

No console games = consoles are dead.

So failing and dead publishers? Dead and failing consoles. Publishers are integral to the market or a reason. History is littered with dead consoles from "big companies" way back when only to die. Sony and Microsoft are nothing special in history.

We're at a very different time in history. Much as Microsoft wants to somehow claim ownership/invention of digital distribution, that transformation has been under way for almost a decade. It's a huge change for the industry because it does, potentially, reduce the importance of the publisher down to almost nothing. If you want to make big bucks, you need the marketing and support that only a big publisher can provide - the deep end of the pool requires that sort of lay out. But there are other depths within that pool, and I'm happy to play in any of them. If the consoles are only viable in a heavily restricted form going forward, maybe they should cease to exist. I know they will for me. I've got this lovely PC alternative, when necessary.

Since there there is no publisher competition, you either deal with their DRM or get out. A console with no games won't have an install base at all soon enough, its been proven time and time again. An argument you found obvious, so you just conceded your own point. Why WOULDN'T they add DRM? They are the only ones in town, anything they say goes.

How is there no publisher competition? You don't think publishers are in direct competition with each other? Tell that to EA, who very clearly tried to climb the CoD hill with BF3. There are certainly a finite number of gaming dollars to be had. Most people are probably buying 1-2 games a month versus 5-10. Are you suggesting it doesn't matter to Activision if those 1-2 games are published by EA?

A console with no games won't have an install base soon enough? You're mangling causation arrows here. If the install base already exists, it doesn't go away. If a console has the largest install base, game makers aren't going to ignore it and intentionally go out of business by creating zero games just to spite us. You're honestly not making sense here.

Pay to Win? Doesn't matter what its status is, Sony did the same shady ethics everyone else did. Even if players hated it, and they did, Sony didn't exactly lower prices. In fact, they increased them. "listening to what gamers want" doesn't seem to always apply now does it?

What are you specifically referencing here? You're speaking in wide swaths of generalization. I'm pointing to specific events that just occurred right under our collective nose. If you're trying to tell me that Sony made a variety of mistakes with the PS3, you'd hear no argument from me. It seems those mistakes have informed their current approach, which is a sign of an intelligent, adaptive, well-run company (or at least a wing of a company).

So where is any of the hope in your old arguments? Everything circles back to publishers controlling everything and if they die, the consoles go with them.

If the publishers die, someone else will make the games we want. That's how real capitalism works. Everyone is replaceable, including the people at the top. Unless you think there exists a world in which millions of people want to play games, and are ready to pay for those games, but no one is willing to make them.

Consumers make this entire industry possible. Period. If I rejoiced at any point in any of these conversations, it was brought on by the rare instance of a consumer group standing up to what a group of corporations were pushing as imperative to the future of an optional/luxury industry. Again, this isn't big oil or steel or coal or any other necessary commodity. It's entertainment. We don't have to put up with anything if we don't want to.

FieryTrainwreck:

Ultratwinkie:
You fail to notice how integral publishers are to consoles.

The only thing integral to this industry is the consumer. It's a luxury/entertainment industry. If we want games, someone will make them. You seem to think of the publishers in terms of Rand's irreplaceable producers. They aren't. They're arguably less important than they've ever been.

Do you have any idea how consoles would survive without publishers? No, you don't. You rather post hopeful rhetoric that somehow it all turns out fine and how nothing can touch consoles.

I don't really care about consoles. I like to play games. If the console model isn't sustainable, I'll play games on my PC. If fewer games are made, or lesser games, those will become my options. If no one is making games, I'll start making my own to fill that void - and I'll probably make a mint doing so.

But to answer your question: XBL/PS Store. Those platforms make money for MS and Sony.

Console development costs are high, too high for any non-publisher dev.

No publishers = no funding.

No funding = no console games.

No console games = consoles are dead.

So failing and dead publishers? Dead and failing consoles. Publishers are integral to the market or a reason. History is littered with dead consoles from "big companies" way back when only to die. Sony and Microsoft are nothing special in history.

We're at a very different time in history. Much as Microsoft wants to somehow claim ownership/invention of digital distribution, that transformation has been under way for almost a decade. It's a huge change for the industry because it does, potentially, reduce the importance of the publisher down to almost nothing. If you want to make big bucks, you need the marketing and support that only a big publisher can provide - the deep end of the pool requires that sort of lay out. But there are other depths within that pool, and I'm happy to play in any of them. If the consoles are only viable in a heavily restricted form going forward, maybe they should cease to exist. I know they will for me. I've got this lovely PC alternative, when necessary.

Since there there is no publisher competition, you either deal with their DRM or get out. A console with no games won't have an install base at all soon enough, its been proven time and time again. An argument you found obvious, so you just conceded your own point. Why WOULDN'T they add DRM? They are the only ones in town, anything they say goes.

How is there no publisher competition? You don't think publishers are in direct competition with each other? Tell that to EA, who very clearly tried to climb the CoD hill with BF3. There are certainly a finite number of gaming dollars to be had. Most people are probably buying 1-2 games a month versus 5-10. Are you suggesting it doesn't matter to Activision if those 1-2 games are published by EA?

A console with no games won't have an install base soon enough? You're mangling causation arrows here. If the install base already exists, it doesn't go away. If a console has the largest install base, game makers aren't going to ignore it and intentionally go out of business by creating zero games just to spite us. You're honestly not making sense here.

Pay to Win? Doesn't matter what its status is, Sony did the same shady ethics everyone else did. Even if players hated it, and they did, Sony didn't exactly lower prices. In fact, they increased them. "listening to what gamers want" doesn't seem to always apply now does it?

What are you specifically referencing here? You're speaking in wide swaths of generalization. I'm pointing to specific events that just occurred right under our collective nose. If you're trying to tell me that Sony made a variety of mistakes with the PS3, you'd hear no argument from me. It seems those mistakes have informed their current approach, which is a sign of an intelligent, adaptive, well-run company (or at least a wing of a company).

So where is any of the hope in your old arguments? Everything circles back to publishers controlling everything and if they die, the consoles go with them.

If the publishers die, someone else will make the games we want. That's how real capitalism works. Everyone is replaceable, including the people at the top. Unless you think there exists a world in which millions of people want to play games, and are ready to pay for those games, but no one is willing to make them.

Consumers make this entire industry possible. Period. If I rejoiced at any point in any of these conversations, it was brought on by the rare instance of a consumer group standing up to what a group of corporations were pushing as imperative to the future of an optional/luxury industry. Again, this isn't big oil or steel or coal or any other necessary commodity. It's entertainment. We don't have to put up with anything if we don't want to.

Consoles: Cost millions, maybe a billion in production and research. Hardware is highly expensive. Costs are recouped with licenses, often increasingly expensive.

Publishers: the only ones who can pay for that.

The only ones who don't have any sort of issue is the PC developers. Once consoles die, there is little reason for anyone to try and revive the console market. Too much investment on both sides.

PC never really needed publishers when steam went for self publishing, and since this is an argument of consoles PC gaming is irrelevant. Kickstarter on consoles won't be a thing.

So in the end, consoles are still fucked. Average consumers lose gaming. I doubt average people would switch to PC gaming in a post apple world. Especially when microsoft wants everyone to stay off their windows platform because of their bad decisions.

So even then, sony and Microsoft are screwed the moment publishers are gone. The only one that could possibly survive is nintendo, but the lack of actual variety would sort of hamper them.

Either way, gaming is sent back to the post 1980s crash early days. Something a big majority of people won't want when their Call of Duties, Mass Effects, and everything else is gone. When they are told to get a PC, they will brush it off because the apple commercials are still remembered. They will still think Windows is the blue screen machine off the 1990s. They won't go for it.

And yes, they can ignore an install base if they want to kill a platform. They aren't there to sell games at that point, they are there to utterly kill a competitor. It seems to be working on the Wii U when no one makes game for it.

And if you want an example of the pay to win issue, look at Planetside 2 and its 7-20$ guns. Big stink over it, and Sony doesn't care, in fact it wants planetside 2 on the PS4 even with its anti consumer mentality. They don't seem to be learning from their mistakes.

So either way, gaming gets heavily hobbled. Publishers pushed out so many developers the moment they die is the time we get a huge game vacuum that would potentially take years to fix.

Ultratwinkie:
snip

I sorta saw the Planetside 2 gun issue as drastically over-informing your point of view. I can sympathize with your frustration, but I don't think it's sensible to extrapolate an entire console-wide ideology from what is (next to Microsoft's parade of disrespect for the consumer) a relatively isolated incident.

I don't think our only options are submit to the will of publishers or crash the industry. I think PC gaming is healthier than you think. I think that the advent of mobile gaming, social gaming, casual gaming, etc. have created a lot more gray area in development, and I see no reason why I couldn't retreat to one of those spheres in the event that console gaming or AAA publishing suddenly goes away. In fact, we'd probably see expansion in those areas, in terms of game complexity and scope, in order to attract the "hardcore gamer refugees".

All in all, things are more fluid now. Digital distribution is a game changer. Casual gaming and mobile gaming are game changers. There are a lot of places for people to go play games now, and it's a lot easier for someone with the drive and ambition to develop to also self-publish or otherwise go it alone.

Gaming isn't going to disappear when EA, Activision, Ubisoft, and the rest of the ill-run dinosaurs do. I can see why they'd want us to think that, though.

Sony does not belive in forcing things down a consumers throat?

SWEET!!!! About time.

So when do they roll out the patch reversing "no civil lawsuits", enabling software backwards compat, and restoring "install OS" function for the PS3 so I can go back to support them?

Legion:
They were planning the launch since 2008 and nobody thought it was a good idea to suggest revealing what the console looked like upon it's announcement? That's kind of worrying really.

If Microsoft hadn't screwed their announcement up people would still be mocking the PS4's original announcement to this day.

After the whole PS3 thing, they must've wanted to take extra care.

Well Sony, that's great that you don't want underhanded borderline-insane stuff shoved down consumer throats.
You movie division still seeding movies so you can sue random people?

risenbone:
Well if the PS3 is anything to go by then Sony don't just shove things down the consumers throat. First they crow bar it in and then use a sledge hammer to ram it into every orrifice the consumer has. Everything the Xbone was going to do at launch the PS4 has the capability to do (In terms of the online DRM) it's just the PS4 won't do it right away but give it a few years and several firmware updates and the PS4 will have everything the Xbone originally said it would.

Just stop. Your argument is invalid on several levels the most significant of which being; Argument From Silence, using the absence of evidence as evidence. Followed closely by; Common Sense Fallacy, 'I don't see this as true therefore it is not.'
Either your wrong and permanently damage your reputation; or your right and when you gloat people call you an asshole. Just don't walk that line, it's not worth it.

FieryTrainwreck:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

snip Planetside 2 snip

For the love of God, and here I was wondering what game it was Ultratwinkie was banging on about. Apparently the only person who didn't know what he was going on about was me :(

OT: This is... good, I guess? Common sense prevails and all that? :/ Meanwhile Nintendo sits in the corner and wonders why the hell Sony is getting all the praise for not trying to screw over everyone.

Yes, I'm a fanboy. Deal with it <3

Infernal Lawyer:

FieryTrainwreck:

Ultratwinkie:
snip

snip Planetside 2 snip

For the love of God, and here I was wondering what game it was Ultratwinkie was banging on about. Apparently the only person who didn't know what he was going on about was me :(

OT: This is... good, I guess? Common sense prevails and all that? :/ Meanwhile Nintendo sits in the corner and wonders why the hell Sony is getting all the praise for not trying to screw over everyone.

Yes, I'm a fanboy. Deal with it <3

You aren't missing much. The developers of Planetside 2 seems to have a hard on for avoiding the player base and giving the customers what they don't want then asking why no one plays anymore. You can't go 2 seconds without a huge firestorm in the official forums that is just ignored.

Players want more combined arms battles? Lets place everything in anti-vehicle domes because we really want to be Call of Duty and Battlefield at the same time.

Players want balance? More hats, convenience updates, and overpowered 7$ weapons.

Players want actual faction traits? The devs take them out, so everyone is the same, thinking it will magically fix balance.

Its sad, really. It was once a good game only to be ruined by awful developers who think pawning it off PS4 gamers and MLG leagues will "save it" instead of actual hard work. Come to think of it, PS4 gamers fought against DRM and bad business practices and the first thing they will see when they boot up the Playstation on launch is an MMO with even worse business practices. Kinda ironic in a way.

Infernal Lawyer:
For the love of God, and here I was wondering what game it was Ultratwinkie was banging on about. Apparently the only person who didn't know what he was going on about was me :(

I had to suss it out, too. Never played Planetside 2 myself, no idea what Ultratwinkie is specifically talking about, but it sounds like a pay-to-win mechanic rearing its head in an otherwise F2P game. That's frustrating, for sure, but I expect those kinds of shenanigans from F2P - especially one without a strong cosmetic aspect. As a business model, it seems heavily reliant on people dropping coin for aesthetic customization. FPS gamers don't seem to care much about anything that doesn't put holes in people more effectively. Still, if I'm reading the situation correctly, I'd probably be more than a little miffed at Sony, too.

OT: This is... good, I guess? Common sense prevails and all that? :/ Meanwhile Nintendo sits in the corner and wonders why the hell Sony is getting all the praise for not trying to screw over everyone.

Yes, I'm a fanboy. Deal with it <3

Nintendo fans make sense, imo. They know what they want, they know who can give it them, and there's no better or equivalent alternative. I'd say they catch flak because it would be sorta nice if they gave you a platform for all the latest first party goodness AND a full-fledged next-gen console at the same time. If Sony is getting all the praise, it might be because they're trying to provide the most cutting edge hardware without also implementing anti-consumer bullshit.

I wasnt going to comment but damn, Ultrawinkie seems to be spewing hatred for whole PlayStation existence based solely on the fact that a single game developers cannot balance their game? are you freaking seriuos? PLanetside developer is dictating whole industry trends? And yeah, Xbox has no unbalanced games right? nto to mention you completely sway away non-console markets as irrelevant.
Speaking of which, there is a quote i often use when talking about developement, and that still stands true for every sucesful game:
"I'd rather have my players annoyed than bored".

Strazdas:
I wasnt going to comment but damn, Ultrawinkie seems to be spewing hatred for whole PlayStation existence based solely on the fact that a single game developers cannot balance their game? are you freaking seriuos? PLanetside developer is dictating whole industry trends? And yeah, Xbox has no unbalanced games right? nto to mention you completely sway away non-console markets as irrelevant.
Speaking of which, there is a quote i often use when talking about developement, and that still stands true for every sucesful game:
"I'd rather have my players annoyed than bored".

I used it as an example, people asked about it and I explained what it was and what happened. The debate went on a tangent of explaining it and the role of publishers than actual debate on sony. The point I was originally trying to make is that just because sony didn't put DRM on a console doesn't mean the industry is suddenly saved, so any boasting on DRM doesn't hold any weight no mattr how many times they bring it up. A point that others have already said. People took that as an offense and are trying to "defend" Sony's "honor" even if the point was as obvious as hell.

It seems if you imply Sony doesn't own and direct the entire console market after E3, everyone loses their minds.

Ultratwinkie:

Strazdas:
I wasnt going to comment but damn, Ultrawinkie seems to be spewing hatred for whole PlayStation existence based solely on the fact that a single game developers cannot balance their game? are you freaking seriuos? PLanetside developer is dictating whole industry trends? And yeah, Xbox has no unbalanced games right? nto to mention you completely sway away non-console markets as irrelevant.
Speaking of which, there is a quote i often use when talking about developement, and that still stands true for every sucesful game:
"I'd rather have my players annoyed than bored".

I used it as an example, people asked about it and I explained what it was and what happened. The debate went on a tangent of explaining it and the role of publishers than actual debate on sony. The point I was originally trying to make is that just because sony didn't put DRM on a console doesn't mean the industry is suddenly saved, so any boasting on DRM doesn't hold any weight no mattr how many times they bring it up. A point that others have already said. People took that as an offense and are trying to "defend" Sony's "honor" even if the point was as obvious as hell.

It seems if you imply Sony doesn't own and direct the entire console market after E3, everyone loses their minds.

Fair enough as far as example goes. As i dont play planetside, i didnt knew about it. indeed you made the point that Sony inst angel saviuor, however then went into a ran of how "Evil" sony is and how "sheep" we are for liking it more than its competitor even though there is a clear advantage for us for liking it more than Microsoft. the consumer is also greedy and seeks maximum profit everywhere. supporting what Sony does right now is profitable for consumer, so it does that. Industry isnt suddenly saved, and noone claims that. They do however, and rightfully so, celebrate that the status quo was kept instead of going the direction that would bring less benefits to the consumer. Them not having DRM have weight and you seem to think that weight means they are saving a consumer, when in reality that weight is simply corporate advantage over Microsoft. and corporate advantage comes from providing a service consumers like more.
Sony does not own entire console market, however from the people who were going to buy a console this christmas, majority will be buying Playstation, because it benefits them as a consumer to do so.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

Strazdas:
I wasnt going to comment but damn, Ultrawinkie seems to be spewing hatred for whole PlayStation existence based solely on the fact that a single game developers cannot balance their game? are you freaking seriuos? PLanetside developer is dictating whole industry trends? And yeah, Xbox has no unbalanced games right? nto to mention you completely sway away non-console markets as irrelevant.
Speaking of which, there is a quote i often use when talking about developement, and that still stands true for every sucesful game:
"I'd rather have my players annoyed than bored".

I used it as an example, people asked about it and I explained what it was and what happened. The debate went on a tangent of explaining it and the role of publishers than actual debate on sony. The point I was originally trying to make is that just because sony didn't put DRM on a console doesn't mean the industry is suddenly saved, so any boasting on DRM doesn't hold any weight no mattr how many times they bring it up. A point that others have already said. People took that as an offense and are trying to "defend" Sony's "honor" even if the point was as obvious as hell.

It seems if you imply Sony doesn't own and direct the entire console market after E3, everyone loses their minds.

Fair enough as far as example goes. As i dont play planetside, i didnt knew about it. indeed you made the point that Sony inst angel saviuor, however then went into a ran of how "Evil" sony is and how "sheep" we are for liking it more than its competitor even though there is a clear advantage for us for liking it more than Microsoft. the consumer is also greedy and seeks maximum profit everywhere. supporting what Sony does right now is profitable for consumer, so it does that. Industry isnt suddenly saved, and noone claims that. They do however, and rightfully so, celebrate that the status quo was kept instead of going the direction that would bring less benefits to the consumer. Them not having DRM have weight and you seem to think that weight means they are saving a consumer, when in reality that weight is simply corporate advantage over Microsoft. and corporate advantage comes from providing a service consumers like more.
Sony does not own entire console market, however from the people who were going to buy a console this christmas, majority will be buying Playstation, because it benefits them as a consumer to do so.

I said Sony was no different from any other company out there. It wasn't a charity, its the same company it was during this generation, and it was doing the same things the others were. The same things gamers complained about.

Since they aren't the defender of gamers, they won't try and stop DRM if it seeps in from third parties. In fact, they can't or risk burning bridges with the fewer and fewer publishers that can stay in business. If they burn bridges, they run the risk of publishers not making any games for that system, a kiss of death for a console.

You say its evil, I say its realistic. They either play ball with the industry or their console dies like the many that came before it. As brutal as that sounds, that's the kind of mentality businesses use.

Although I can see why you think that, the guy I was talking with decided to delete his posts.

Ultratwinkie:

I said Sony was no different from any other company out there. It wasn't a charity, its the same company it was during this generation, and it was doing the same things the others were. The same things gamers complained about.

Since they aren't the defender of gamers, they won't try and stop DRM if it seeps in from third parties. In fact, they can't or risk burning bridges with the fewer and fewer publishers that can stay in business. If they burn bridges, they run the risk of publishers not making any games for that system, a kiss of death for a console.

You say its evil, I say its realistic. They either play ball with the industry or their console dies like the many that came before it. As brutal as that sounds, that's the kind of mentality businesses use.

Although I can see why you think that, the guy I was talking with decided to delete his posts.

Except that it wasnt doing the same things gamers complained about Xbox is doing.

They will try and maybe even suceed in stopping at least some forms of DRM. why? because thats beneficial to them. Gamers dont like DRM, this is quite clear. So if they got a system that does not have DRM, they will choose that over the other all else equal. Therefore, stopping DRM will actually bring them costumers, which is profit for them.
And publishers wont dare to burn bridges. After the backlast Xbox had and their attempts to isolate Nintendo away there is no market left for them to sell us those yearly 60 dollar games. There is PC you say, yeah, and see how much publishers like it if they plan to "Start porting" after 3 years?

Their console wont die because they wont play ball with the industry. because not playing ball is exactly what got them superior sales at this very moment. it is profitable for them not to play ball, and as long as that remains so, they wont.

I saw FieryTrainwreck posts before they got deleted (it seems they did now, why i wonder), so that was not interacting my perception.

How about we stop insulting our customers by calling them "consumers". Yea, that'd be great.

masticina:
Again Sony is not really doing anything much... that means neither BAD nor GOOD. They are kinda waiting out what is going to happen and the are letting others like Microsoft make the big mistakes.

But are they defenders of gamers.. no far no! They only reason they are so "nice" right now is because they have looked at Microsoft.

Again the same people who wanted the Xbox One DRM in place [aka EA, Activision and I expect Bioware] also talked to Sony.

Just because Sony didn't give in doesn't means they are the heroes of gamers. Instead they just waited to see what the market was doing and how far they could push things.

This looks about right. I won't be buying any consoles as I'm perfectly happy with my PC, but if I did I wouldn't be getting either of the big AAA ones.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

I said Sony was no different from any other company out there. It wasn't a charity, its the same company it was during this generation, and it was doing the same things the others were. The same things gamers complained about.

Since they aren't the defender of gamers, they won't try and stop DRM if it seeps in from third parties. In fact, they can't or risk burning bridges with the fewer and fewer publishers that can stay in business. If they burn bridges, they run the risk of publishers not making any games for that system, a kiss of death for a console.

You say its evil, I say its realistic. They either play ball with the industry or their console dies like the many that came before it. As brutal as that sounds, that's the kind of mentality businesses use.

Although I can see why you think that, the guy I was talking with decided to delete his posts.

Except that it wasnt doing the same things gamers complained about Xbox is doing.

They will try and maybe even suceed in stopping at least some forms of DRM. why? because thats beneficial to them. Gamers dont like DRM, this is quite clear. So if they got a system that does not have DRM, they will choose that over the other all else equal. Therefore, stopping DRM will actually bring them costumers, which is profit for them.
And publishers wont dare to burn bridges. After the backlast Xbox had and their attempts to isolate Nintendo away there is no market left for them to sell us those yearly 60 dollar games. There is PC you say, yeah, and see how much publishers like it if they plan to "Start porting" after 3 years?

Their console wont die because they wont play ball with the industry. because not playing ball is exactly what got them superior sales at this very moment. it is profitable for them not to play ball, and as long as that remains so, they wont.

I saw FieryTrainwreck posts before they got deleted (it seems they did now, why i wonder), so that was not interacting my perception.

I said it was the same this generation, and there are traces of it almost doing what the xbox was doing but was dropped. It became obvious that blatant DRM doesn't really work in that fashion, but low profile DRM does.

Low profile DRM is known very well in this generation. In fact, gamers have been proven to buy things if its hyped enough. Its been proven before. If gamers really hated DRM, everything EA would have made wouldn't have made a profit. In fact, Diablo wouldn't have sold as much as it did. The general population doesn't really seem to care, they surely haven't before.

Publishers can easily play hard ball and isolate your console, you can't afford that to happen. Sure some gamers would praise it, but at the end of the day its all game library numbers and exclusives. Gamers want games, and if another console can give them those games they will leave. All a "last stand" would have done is make you bankrupt. The general public doesn't really care, this is the same general public that hands all its info to companies without worry. Its also a very poor general public now, so they can't afford to support a console that won't get support.

So publishers really could kill a platform if they really wanted to. Keep in mind the cost that goes into hardware like this and how Sony is having some financial issues with its divisions means Sony can't last long if the publishers banded together and wanted them gone. Its a big gamble for them to really stand up against DRM.

The safest route would be to not have DRM on console, but allow third party DRM. Which they obviously would do. As a console manufacturer, every game you get on the platform is a good thing. You take cuts from every game, and the biggest money makers are AAAs from publishers. Since consoles have a bit of an issue with profitability, its just another reason to pile on the mountain of reasons why trying to stand up against DRM would be a bad idea for Sony.

Ultratwinkie:

I said it was the same this generation, and there are traces of it almost doing what the xbox was doing but was dropped. It became obvious that blatant DRM doesn't really work in that fashion, but low profile DRM does.

Low profile DRM is known very well in this generation. In fact, gamers have been proven to buy things if its hyped enough. Its been proven before. If gamers really hated DRM, everything EA would have made wouldn't have made a profit. In fact, Diablo wouldn't have sold as much as it did. The general population doesn't really seem to care, they surely haven't before.

The general population see the market in this way: what do i gain if i sign up for DRM. the only DRM that worked, is the one thatgave its users a lot in return ( see: steam). Diablo is quite poor example really, since the game is a ghost town now. There arep robably more Diablo 2 palyers than diablo 3 by now. I doubt you can call that sucess.
And EA isnt the one with most DRM. its ubisoft and activision. though Sim City did bring EA close. i know its fashionable to hit on EA at every turn, but there are worse gaming publsihers out there.

Publishers can easily play hard ball and isolate your console, you can't afford that to happen. Sure some gamers would praise it, but at the end of the day its all game library numbers and exclusives.

One word: Nintendo
No, but, seriuosly, publishers will not be stupid enough to avoid the most popular console this generation if they want to stay profitable with their bloated budgets. it simply wont work if Sony keeps the ration of users as it has now and refuses to implement DRM publishers will have no choice but to play ball with sonys rules. dont underestimate the power of a huge userbase.

Its also a very poor general public now, so they can't afford to support a console that won't get support.

Im sorry, this is 2013, would you stop blaming the 2008 crysis for everything by now?

So publishers really could kill a platform if they really wanted to.

yes, but it would be as profitable to them as a person who jumps in front of a car. sure you may havei nconvienienced the driver that was an ass, but you suicided in the process.

Keep in mind the cost that goes into hardware like this and how Sony is having some financial issues with its divisions means Sony can't last long if the publishers banded together and wanted them gone. Its a big gamble for them to really stand up against DRM.

Xbox division was reporting a loss all the way till 2010 and it is still a net loss (meaning the whole project as a whole, even ignoring inflation, is a complete failure from investors perspective). and yet they stand.

The safest route would be to not have DRM on console, but allow third party DRM. Which they obviously would do.

they already said that they do not have any DRM support but pulishers can do as they pelase, exatly the same way they did with PS3 - as in we aint changing anything toward publishers.

like you siad yourself, the more people that you sell console games to, the more profit you get, thus it is in fact profitable to stand agaisnt DRM.
you significantly overeastinate the bargaining power of publishers.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

I said it was the same this generation, and there are traces of it almost doing what the xbox was doing but was dropped. It became obvious that blatant DRM doesn't really work in that fashion, but low profile DRM does.

Low profile DRM is known very well in this generation. In fact, gamers have been proven to buy things if its hyped enough. Its been proven before. If gamers really hated DRM, everything EA would have made wouldn't have made a profit. In fact, Diablo wouldn't have sold as much as it did. The general population doesn't really seem to care, they surely haven't before.

The general population see the market in this way: what do i gain if i sign up for DRM. the only DRM that worked, is the one thatgave its users a lot in return ( see: steam). Diablo is quite poor example really, since the game is a ghost town now. There arep robably more Diablo 2 palyers than diablo 3 by now. I doubt you can call that sucess.
And EA isnt the one with most DRM. its ubisoft and activision. though Sim City did bring EA close. i know its fashionable to hit on EA at every turn, but there are worse gaming publsihers out there.

Publishers can easily play hard ball and isolate your console, you can't afford that to happen. Sure some gamers would praise it, but at the end of the day its all game library numbers and exclusives.

One word: Nintendo
No, but, seriuosly, publishers will not be stupid enough to avoid the most popular console this generation if they want to stay profitable with their bloated budgets. it simply wont work if Sony keeps the ration of users as it has now and refuses to implement DRM publishers will have no choice but to play ball with sonys rules. dont underestimate the power of a huge userbase.

Its also a very poor general public now, so they can't afford to support a console that won't get support.

Im sorry, this is 2013, would you stop blaming the 2008 crysis for everything by now?

So publishers really could kill a platform if they really wanted to.

yes, but it would be as profitable to them as a person who jumps in front of a car. sure you may havei nconvienienced the driver that was an ass, but you suicided in the process.

Keep in mind the cost that goes into hardware like this and how Sony is having some financial issues with its divisions means Sony can't last long if the publishers banded together and wanted them gone. Its a big gamble for them to really stand up against DRM.

Xbox division was reporting a loss all the way till 2010 and it is still a net loss (meaning the whole project as a whole, even ignoring inflation, is a complete failure from investors perspective). and yet they stand.

The safest route would be to not have DRM on console, but allow third party DRM. Which they obviously would do.

they already said that they do not have any DRM support but pulishers can do as they pelase, exatly the same way they did with PS3 - as in we aint changing anything toward publishers.

like you siad yourself, the more people that you sell console games to, the more profit you get, thus it is in fact profitable to stand agaisnt DRM.
you significantly overeastinate the bargaining power of publishers.

You think that everyone is suddenly okay now? Analysts have said time and time again customers are still scared to put money down on big items. Just because the crisis isn't happening doesn't mean everyone magically turned confident and rich.

And the fact publishers could also die brings a new issue. Who will make the games? Consoles need support day one or risk being unprofitable. If publishers go, they end up taking the games they would have made with them until other companies could scrounge up to afford it. Consoles cannot afford to lose any games or hope that someone will replace it quickly. These are huge companies, it will take a long time for another to take its place. In fact, it may never be replaced because PC gaming has kneecapped consoles when it comes to developer attractiveness. WHo would really want to make expensive games for consoles when you can make cheap and profitable games on PC? Its a game of chicken to be sure, it only remains to be seen who breaks first.

First party publishing wouldn't really work, you wouldn't be able to turn out the required games to keep your console afloat. You spent money, made little money, and hope your console debts can be paid off. Doesn't work that way.

When publishers isolate a platform, they aren't there for money. They are there for blood and to destroy an entire platform. They would find many ways to make people jump. If activision said "no call of duty" on the playstation when call of duty started to get really popular, the playstation would have been severely hobbled.

lack of DRM takes a backseat to games. Its the reason Origin has any users at all. So yes publishers could starve them out.

Ultratwinkie:

You think that everyone is suddenly okay now? Analysts have said time and time again customers are still scared to put money down on big items. Just because the crisis isn't happening doesn't mean everyone magically turned confident and rich.

And the fact publishers could also die brings a new issue. Who will make the games? Consoles need support day one or risk being unprofitable. If publishers go, they end up taking the games they would have made with them until other companies could scrounge up to afford it. Consoles cannot afford to lose any games or hope that someone will replace it quickly. These are huge companies, it will take a long time for another to take its place. In fact, it may never be replaced because PC gaming has kneecapped consoles when it comes to developer attractiveness. WHo would really want to make expensive games for consoles when you can make cheap and profitable games on PC? Its a game of chicken to be sure, it only remains to be seen who breaks first.

First party publishing wouldn't really work, you wouldn't be able to turn out the required games to keep your console afloat. You spent money, made little money, and hope your console debts can be paid off. Doesn't work that way.

When publishers isolate a platform, they aren't there for money. They are there for blood and to destroy an entire platform. They would find many ways to make people jump. If activision said "no call of duty" on the playstation when call of duty started to get really popular, the playstation would have been severely hobbled.

lack of DRM takes a backseat to games. Its the reason Origin has any users at all. So yes publishers could starve them out.

Of course not. there was no time in human history when "Everyone was okay". Yes, they are scared to take huge loans they wont be able to pay. i call that a good thing. maybe we can root the "living on a loan" type of life a bit. but thats a different topic. The crysis is over, you can stop blaming it for everything.

Publishers are not even making games nor are they essential to making games. they are the middleman between game studio and the consumer. one that in ever digitalizing matrket become more and more obsolete, so they fight tooth and nail to deny us the ability to control our purchases and contact with developers. we saw them suceed in musci industry, we can see them suceeding in movie industry, but we dont have to let them suceed in gaming.
the developers themself have often stated they got no interest in DRM or console wars and would be much more open on releasing it on a DRM free console. and lets not ignore all the independant and upcoming developers. sore most of them dont make AAA games, but do i really need to point out at Star Citizen and Minecraft again?

Consoles can afford to loose some games if that means their other games will sell to a much larger (judging from preorders 3 times higher at least) audience. as you said, they are big companies, and they can cover some loses if that means lots more profit in the future. heck, Microsoft has been doing just that for the last 10 years. and Sony completely ate up the failure of PS3 sales and havent gone bancrupt. Micorosft and Sony have huge part of thier business in other things than gaming, and as such they can easily cover the console loses if they see a future cash cow. and having a huge audience is a cash cow.

And as you say yourself PC is mroe attractive to developers and more profitable, then why doesnt the big companies go there? answer is simple - audience. consoles have more of it. (although to be frank i wish to see the day when PC goes back to being on top, but thats subjectivity)

First party has kept nintedo afloat, so you cant really spin this argument.

Call of duty, as much as it riled up on the internet, isnt actually that huge. FOr example god of war 3 sold more copies than all COD games combined on PS3. PC sales, who are praised as a "Shooter platform" is in fact dominated by <Drums> The Sims. And it cant even come clsoe to scraching the sale fogures of big nintendo franchises. it may be the largest FPS, but it isnt as internet makes it out to be. WOW has more players than COD sold copies. Sure there would be fanatics. i know a person who bought a PS3 only for Last of Us. but they arent that numerous. as you said yourself, the average gamer doesnt care that much.

Origin was a smart push becasue it came with extremely anticipated game, and some people valued the game mroe than their freedom. however you cant really call Origin a sucess with what userbase it has and even those are the people who are forced into it by the publishers and never really use the "origin services" other tha "shut up and allow me to play the game".

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

You think that everyone is suddenly okay now? Analysts have said time and time again customers are still scared to put money down on big items. Just because the crisis isn't happening doesn't mean everyone magically turned confident and rich.

And the fact publishers could also die brings a new issue. Who will make the games? Consoles need support day one or risk being unprofitable. If publishers go, they end up taking the games they would have made with them until other companies could scrounge up to afford it. Consoles cannot afford to lose any games or hope that someone will replace it quickly. These are huge companies, it will take a long time for another to take its place. In fact, it may never be replaced because PC gaming has kneecapped consoles when it comes to developer attractiveness. WHo would really want to make expensive games for consoles when you can make cheap and profitable games on PC? Its a game of chicken to be sure, it only remains to be seen who breaks first.

First party publishing wouldn't really work, you wouldn't be able to turn out the required games to keep your console afloat. You spent money, made little money, and hope your console debts can be paid off. Doesn't work that way.

When publishers isolate a platform, they aren't there for money. They are there for blood and to destroy an entire platform. They would find many ways to make people jump. If activision said "no call of duty" on the playstation when call of duty started to get really popular, the playstation would have been severely hobbled.

lack of DRM takes a backseat to games. Its the reason Origin has any users at all. So yes publishers could starve them out.

Of course not. there was no time in human history when "Everyone was okay". Yes, they are scared to take huge loans they wont be able to pay. i call that a good thing. maybe we can root the "living on a loan" type of life a bit. but thats a different topic. The crysis is over, you can stop blaming it for everything.

Publishers are not even making games nor are they essential to making games. they are the middleman between game studio and the consumer. one that in ever digitalizing matrket become more and more obsolete, so they fight tooth and nail to deny us the ability to control our purchases and contact with developers. we saw them suceed in musci industry, we can see them suceeding in movie industry, but we dont have to let them suceed in gaming.
the developers themself have often stated they got no interest in DRM or console wars and would be much more open on releasing it on a DRM free console. and lets not ignore all the independant and upcoming developers. sore most of them dont make AAA games, but do i really need to point out at Star Citizen and Minecraft again?

Consoles can afford to loose some games if that means their other games will sell to a much larger (judging from preorders 3 times higher at least) audience. as you said, they are big companies, and they can cover some loses if that means lots more profit in the future. heck, Microsoft has been doing just that for the last 10 years. and Sony completely ate up the failure of PS3 sales and havent gone bancrupt. Micorosft and Sony have huge part of thier business in other things than gaming, and as such they can easily cover the console loses if they see a future cash cow. and having a huge audience is a cash cow.

And as you say yourself PC is mroe attractive to developers and more profitable, then why doesnt the big companies go there? answer is simple - audience. consoles have more of it. (although to be frank i wish to see the day when PC goes back to being on top, but thats subjectivity)

First party has kept nintedo afloat, so you cant really spin this argument.

Call of duty, as much as it riled up on the internet, isnt actually that huge. FOr example god of war 3 sold more copies than all COD games combined on PS3. PC sales, who are praised as a "Shooter platform" is in fact dominated by <Drums> The Sims. And it cant even come clsoe to scraching the sale fogures of big nintendo franchises. it may be the largest FPS, but it isnt as internet makes it out to be. WOW has more players than COD sold copies. Sure there would be fanatics. i know a person who bought a PS3 only for Last of Us. but they arent that numerous. as you said yourself, the average gamer doesnt care that much.

Origin was a smart push becasue it came with extremely anticipated game, and some people valued the game mroe than their freedom. however you cant really call Origin a sucess with what userbase it has and even those are the people who are forced into it by the publishers and never really use the "origin services" other tha "shut up and allow me to play the game".

In case you haven't noticed, publishers are kinda the only reason consoles have games. Its their funding that allows developers to eat the licensing fee and other costs. Consoles are dependent on publishers now, has been since they got huge. Consoles have been known for their high cost to developers.

And yes, they are going PC as well yet AAA are required to be multiplatform. Big companies however want big games, and big games tend to be multiplatform now. Investors want maximum exposure to everyone with every system. Star citizen and minecraft? PC titles in a console argument?

Are you going to say Blockbuster is okay because Netflix profits are huge? Even then, the amount of money that star citizen gained doesn't even scratch the average cost of AAAs, 8 million vs an average of 28 million.

And here's the thing: Digital, outside of PC, isn't there on consoles. For many reasons.

Lack of hard drive size, which raises costs of consoles.

Internet speed of the gamers, not everyone has the best internet. In fact, the biggest reason people wanted consoles is because of physical goods. Even sony says so.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/sony-majority-of-gamers-dont-want-to-buy-online-right-now-6410617

So what does this mean? Either by your own words Sony still caters to publishers or caters to gamers who don't want online. Either way, digital is out for the foreseeable 10 years.

Nintendo? Their wii U still isn't selling. Third party abandoned the platform. How is the WII U "staying afloat?" Its drowning.

Origin use is still use. Forced or not doesn't matter. If gamers allowed themselves to be forced, they would have kept quiet about the xbox one. They didn't they wanted their games more than they wanted their sense of ownership.

Like it or not, consoles cannot afford to lose games. Especially from the big 3 who bring in the actual money. Do you know how much money is invested in console development?

I'll give you a hint:

Xbox One: 3 billion. Since the PS4 is similar in hardware, the price should also apply.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20130527231722_Microsoft_Xbox_One_APU_Cost_Over_3_Billion_to_Develop.html

So lets look at what sold this generation, so lets take Modern Warfare 2 at 22 million.

Lets assume its a 50/50 division, so 11 million sales for your console. Lets assume a small 5% cut of the profits at 59.99$ a pop. This equals 33,000,000.

So 1.09% of your 3 billion dollar debt is paid off by that one game, even if its a best seller. One of the best selling games only gets you 1.09% of your debt paid. So a best seller has issue putting a dent in your debt, and you want more games to leave your platform?

So lets see how many games are released in a year:

EA released 30 games in 2012.
Activision released 11 in 2012.
I had a bit o an issue with finding exact number for Ubisoft.

So lets see, a best seller put barely a 2% dent in your debt. Denying over 41 more games of varying success is not a smart business strategy. This is just for one single year, not counting all the games they ever produced on a single platform. As you can see, a console manufacturer needs all the help it can get. Sony won't interfere with publishers, its suicide to.

They can hope that the microsoft debacle helps marketing, and that's it. It can't afford to be a defender of gamers or chase after publishers.

Legion:
They were planning the launch since 2008 and nobody thought it was a good idea to suggest revealing what the console looked like upon it's announcement? That's kind of worrying really.

If Microsoft hadn't screwed their announcement up people would still be mocking the PS4's original announcement to this day.

Not to mention the fact that it was only Microsoft's announcement that changed their plans for packaging with Move mandatory, a higher price point, and DRM. They already said that the DRM decision was at least partially made by Microsoft and the response.

Of course, they still get some points for not deciding to double down on such stupidity.

And they probably should still be mocked for their reveal, yeah. They were kind of ridiculous about it and were saved only by Microsoft being ridiculous-er.

Ridiculouser should totally be a word. It seems perfectly cromulent.

Ultratwinkie:
<long post?

Consoles have games outside of publishers. They are not the main reason. and once again you overvalue the bartering power of a publisher. They cannot do a denial of access for Sony because that would be a suicide for the publisher.

Sorry, i dont count "Barely working" PC ports as pc games. They are developing for consoles, and PC is just a port for a cash grab. Most PC ports come a year late.
I stated that there are games that have huge sucess and no publishers. you said game studios cant work without them. you were wrong. what platform it is is irrelevant.

Ditial isnt there on the consoles, because publishers are acting stupid again. the sony statement has been shown to be wrong. people want to buy digital. but they want to buy digital when buying digital has advantages (see: steam again), isntead of only disadvantages (current console online sale model). it has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with service provided.

Nintendo holds the title for having top 10 games in worldwide sale count to be all nintendo first party games. i call that extreme sucess.
well if we count mobiles then i guess its 8 out of 10.

PS4 cost less to develop, since Microsoft tried to cut corners with its processor, failed, and had to redo it again, hence less copies available for preorder (not manufactured fast enough) and we can expect high failure rate from this as well.
but that is beside the point. it costs 3 billion to develop. microsoft has reported a $4.24 billion revenue in 2012Q4. that is 4.24b revenue in 3 months. lets say this revenue is the same every year for simplicity (or course its not), and lets say console is being developer for 3 years (its longer in reality). so they spent 3 billion to develop a product, while 4.24*4(quarters)*3(years)=50,88 billions revenue was made. Which means that the profitability lowered by money spent into research is by 5,89%. A companys profit is normally considered too low if it is bellow 10%. Microsofts profit rate was a quite stable 20-30% rate and has fell in 2012 because they had to write off a $6.19Billion for aQuantive.
So yeah, the developement costs can certainly be eaten up without going bancrupt. heck, sony did it with PS3.

Lets assume its a 50/50 division

but thats the thing. with what sony is doing, this wont be 50/50, this will be more like 25/75, and if that means you loose a few bestsellers, you still make up just by sheer amount of sales.

EA released 30 games in 2012.
Activision released 11 in 2012.
I had a bit o an issue with finding exact number for Ubisoft.

there were 651 games released for Playstation3 in 2012. Out of them 233 were big enough to receive enough critical attention to get a metascore. So really, how big is 11 games compared to 651? And did activision released 11 games for every plantform? because if we look at 2012 for PS3+Xbox+PC it goes to multiple thousands.

It is the publishers who will be chasing sony when the userbase is divided this way. if you got a product to sell it is stupid to ignore 75% of your market.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:
<long post?

Consoles have games outside of publishers. They are not the main reason. and once again you overvalue the bartering power of a publisher. They cannot do a denial of access for Sony because that would be a suicide for the publisher.

Sorry, i dont count "Barely working" PC ports as pc games. They are developing for consoles, and PC is just a port for a cash grab. Most PC ports come a year late.
I stated that there are games that have huge sucess and no publishers. you said game studios cant work without them. you were wrong. what platform it is is irrelevant.

Ditial isnt there on the consoles, because publishers are acting stupid again. the sony statement has been shown to be wrong. people want to buy digital. but they want to buy digital when buying digital has advantages (see: steam again), isntead of only disadvantages (current console online sale model). it has nothing to do with digital and everything to do with service provided.

Nintendo holds the title for having top 10 games in worldwide sale count to be all nintendo first party games. i call that extreme sucess.
well if we count mobiles then i guess its 8 out of 10.

PS4 cost less to develop, since Microsoft tried to cut corners with its processor, failed, and had to redo it again, hence less copies available for preorder (not manufactured fast enough) and we can expect high failure rate from this as well.
but that is beside the point. it costs 3 billion to develop. microsoft has reported a $4.24 billion revenue in 2012Q4. that is 4.24b revenue in 3 months. lets say this revenue is the same every year for simplicity (or course its not), and lets say console is being developer for 3 years (its longer in reality). so they spent 3 billion to develop a product, while 4.24*4(quarters)*3(years)=50,88 billions revenue was made. Which means that the profitability lowered by money spent into research is by 5,89%. A companys profit is normally considered too low if it is bellow 10%. Microsofts profit rate was a quite stable 20-30% rate and has fell in 2012 because they had to write off a $6.19Billion for aQuantive.
So yeah, the developement costs can certainly be eaten up without going bancrupt. heck, sony did it with PS3.

Lets assume its a 50/50 division

but thats the thing. with what sony is doing, this wont be 50/50, this will be more like 25/75, and if that means you loose a few bestsellers, you still make up just by sheer amount of sales.

EA released 30 games in 2012.
Activision released 11 in 2012.
I had a bit o an issue with finding exact number for Ubisoft.

there were 651 games released for Playstation3 in 2012. Out of them 233 were big enough to receive enough critical attention to get a metascore. So really, how big is 11 games compared to 651? And did activision released 11 games for every plantform? because if we look at 2012 for PS3+Xbox+PC it goes to multiple thousands.

It is the publishers who will be chasing sony when the userbase is divided this way. if you got a product to sell it is stupid to ignore 75% of your market.

Microsoft makes most of its money from windows. Not from gaming. In fact, its gaming division has profit troubles even before the Xbox one. Sony does NOT have that same luxury. Its entertainment division is by far the most important.

As you said, Microsoft can eat the cost. Sony can't. It needs its entertainment division.

And again, you fail to fucking realise this main issue.

No publishers means almost no games. This isn't PC gaming so they can't do kickstarter and indies are all busy making PC games. So past the launch titles there won't be anything else. No one is coming to save the consoles, what you see is what you get. It doesn't matter if 75% of people have it, if there are no games people won't use it and it will be dead. Not to mention its debt won't be repaid.

You keep bringing profits and market share into an argument. Its like a city without water, it won't be a city for long when everyone leaves because there is no fucking water. Do I have to spell this out for you?

Just like a city, you can kill it by not letting it get water (games). A console with no games is just a paperweight, and unlike PC gaming no one is coming to save it. No one. They are all at kickstarter on steam, they wouldn't waste their time with high costs and a highly locked down market.

Good games doesn't always equal money. If that was the case both Sony and Microsoft would have left long ago and consolees would be owned entirely by nintendo. Instead Nintendo has issue moving Wii Us.

Okay, so you say digital makes publishers irrelevant then turn around and say digital on consoles isn't there? So publishers are still needed on Consoles? agreeing with me?

Why didn't you just concede earlier?

And platform does matter. Publishers matter on consoles because no actual way to self publish, PCs don't rely on retail so self publishing is okay.

You keep bringing PC into an argument over consoles as if it matters because its the only place you actually grab excuses from. We are talking about consoles and games, leave the PC at the door because its way of doing things is way ahead of consoles.

Otherwise, publishers and gamestop would already be gone and everyone would be downloading all their games directly from the internet. Consoles rely on retail, PC relies on digital. Consoles don't have digital by your own admission and the mentality of Sony itself. So therefore publishers still matter in consoles.

It doesn't matter if sony is "wrong." Digital isn't there to save the day so consoles have no other choice than use publishers. Sony says online still isn't viable, then it isn't coming for consoles. Simple as that.

Ultratwinkie:
<...>

Microsoft makes most of its money from windows. Not from gaming. In fact, its gaming division has profit troubles even before the Xbox one. Sony does NOT have that same luxury. Its entertainment division is by far the most important.

As you said, Microsoft can eat the cost. Sony can't. It needs its entertainment division.

And again, you fail to fucking realise this main issue.

No publishers means almost no games. This isn't PC gaming so they can't do kickstarter and indies are all busy making PC games. So past the launch titles there won't be anything else. No one is coming to save the consoles, what you see is what you get. It doesn't matter if 75% of people have it, if there are no games people won't use it and it will be dead. Not to mention its debt won't be repaid.

You keep bringing profits and market share into an argument. Its like a city without water, it won't be a city for long when everyone leaves because there is no fucking water. Do I have to spell this out for you?

Just like a city, you can kill it by not letting it get water (games). A console with no games is just a paperweight, and unlike PC gaming no one is coming to save it. No one. They are all at kickstarter on steam, they wouldn't waste their time with high costs and a highly locked down market.

Good games doesn't always equal money. If that was the case both Sony and Microsoft would have left long ago and consolees would be owned entirely by nintendo. Instead Nintendo has issue moving Wii Us.

Okay, so you say digital makes publishers irrelevant then turn around and say digital on consoles isn't there? So publishers are still needed on Consoles? agreeing with me?

Why didn't you just concede earlier?

And platform does matter. Publishers matter on consoles because no actual way to self publish, PCs don't rely on retail so self publishing is okay.

You keep bringing PC into an argument over consoles as if it matters because its the only place you actually grab excuses from. We are talking about consoles and games, leave the PC at the door because its way of doing things is way ahead of consoles.

Otherwise, publishers and gamestop would already be gone and everyone would be downloading all their games directly from the internet. Consoles rely on retail, PC relies on digital. Consoles don't have digital by your own admission and the mentality of Sony itself. So therefore publishers still matter in consoles.

It doesn't matter if sony is "wrong." Digital isn't there to save the day so consoles have no other choice than use publishers. Sony says online still isn't viable, then it isn't coming for consoles. Simple as that.[/quote]

Yes, microsoft makes most of its money from windows. and SOny makes most of its money from hardware. since, you know, they make pretty much every hardware device out there by now.Sony can eat the price, they done it with PS3 before.

You heard about the Indie acess for PS4. that is a gateway for all non-publisher dev, essentially, same gateway that a PC would have to reach its fans. if sony wanted, it could easily provide similar support as PC does to develop on their platform.
Also you assume all publishers go away instantly. but its really only the big three pushing for DRM in the first place. and those are not majority of publishers market.
I think your whole failure to udnerstand my point cones from thuinknig that all publishers will run away from sony. they wont. i repeat: they wont.
there is absolutely no efficient method for EA to deny console of all games. it can deny it of its own games, and thats it.
No, good games dont mean money, sales mean money. i was pointing out that nintedo games got most sales. i could argue about them being the best ( i think they are far from it) but thats not the place.

digital makes publishersi rrelevant, hence publishers fight to nto allow consumer beneficial digital distribution. publishers are not needed, they however are fighting to stay there. there are plenty of stuff that is not needed but exists. just because it exists does not mean its needed. for example stupidity.

Consoles dont ahve to rely on retail. they chose to. whether being bought by publishers, or themselves supporting the model. they dont have to.
of course PC matters. its a healthy alternative. peopel palying consoles are not stuck with consoles. the whole argument is that consoles CAN do "way ahead" as PC does, but they dont. and thats why publishers still retain any power. Granted i often use PC exampels because those are the ones i know best, being mostly PC gamer. you do have to remember that games like Minecraft sold more on consoles than on PC, though admitedly they had to sign into MS publishing because console manufacturer had all the power.

gamestop is experiencing troubles if you follow the news. and it should be gone as soon as consoles start providing beneficial (isntead of restrictive) digital sales.

digital IS there to "save the day". you shoudl rather say "Sony is not using digital".

i find it funny how you use current gen situation to base next gen sales whne it is obviuos the tables have turned.

Strazdas:

Microsoft makes most of its money from windows. Not from gaming. In fact, its gaming division has profit troubles even before the Xbox one. Sony does NOT have that same luxury. Its entertainment division is by far the most important.

As you said, Microsoft can eat the cost. Sony can't. It needs its entertainment division.

And again, you fail to fucking realise this main issue.

No publishers means almost no games. This isn't PC gaming so they can't do kickstarter and indies are all busy making PC games. So past the launch titles there won't be anything else. No one is coming to save the consoles, what you see is what you get. It doesn't matter if 75% of people have it, if there are no games people won't use it and it will be dead. Not to mention its debt won't be repaid.

You keep bringing profits and market share into an argument. Its like a city without water, it won't be a city for long when everyone leaves because there is no fucking water. Do I have to spell this out for you?

Just like a city, you can kill it by not letting it get water (games). A console with no games is just a paperweight, and unlike PC gaming no one is coming to save it. No one. They are all at kickstarter on steam, they wouldn't waste their time with high costs and a highly locked down market.

Good games doesn't always equal money. If that was the case both Sony and Microsoft would have left long ago and consolees would be owned entirely by nintendo. Instead Nintendo has issue moving Wii Us.

Okay, so you say digital makes publishers irrelevant then turn around and say digital on consoles isn't there? So publishers are still needed on Consoles? agreeing with me?

Why didn't you just concede earlier?

And platform does matter. Publishers matter on consoles because no actual way to self publish, PCs don't rely on retail so self publishing is okay.

You keep bringing PC into an argument over consoles as if it matters because its the only place you actually grab excuses from. We are talking about consoles and games, leave the PC at the door because its way of doing things is way ahead of consoles.

Otherwise, publishers and gamestop would already be gone and everyone would be downloading all their games directly from the internet. Consoles rely on retail, PC relies on digital. Consoles don't have digital by your own admission and the mentality of Sony itself. So therefore publishers still matter in consoles.

It doesn't matter if sony is "wrong." Digital isn't there to save the day so consoles have no other choice than use publishers. Sony says online still isn't viable, then it isn't coming for consoles. Simple as that.

Yes, microsoft makes most of its money from windows. and SOny makes most of its money from hardware. since, you know, they make pretty much every hardware device out there by now.Sony can eat the price, they done it with PS3 before.

You heard about the Indie acess for PS4. that is a gateway for all non-publisher dev, essentially, same gateway that a PC would have to reach its fans. if sony wanted, it could easily provide similar support as PC does to develop on their platform.
Also you assume all publishers go away instantly. but its really only the big three pushing for DRM in the first place. and those are not majority of publishers market.
I think your whole failure to udnerstand my point cones from thuinknig that all publishers will run away from sony. they wont. i repeat: they wont.
there is absolutely no efficient method for EA to deny console of all games. it can deny it of its own games, and thats it.
No, good games dont mean money, sales mean money. i was pointing out that nintedo games got most sales. i could argue about them being the best ( i think they are far from it) but thats not the place.

digital makes publishersi rrelevant, hence publishers fight to nto allow consumer beneficial digital distribution. publishers are not needed, they however are fighting to stay there. there are plenty of stuff that is not needed but exists. just because it exists does not mean its needed. for example stupidity.

Consoles dont ahve to rely on retail. they chose to. whether being bought by publishers, or themselves supporting the model. they dont have to.
of course PC matters. its a healthy alternative. peopel palying consoles are not stuck with consoles. the whole argument is that consoles CAN do "way ahead" as PC does, but they dont. and thats why publishers still retain any power. Granted i often use PC exampels because those are the ones i know best, being mostly PC gamer. you do have to remember that games like Minecraft sold more on consoles than on PC, though admitedly they had to sign into MS publishing because console manufacturer had all the power.

gamestop is experiencing troubles if you follow the news. and it should be gone as soon as consoles start providing beneficial (isntead of restrictive) digital sales.

digital IS there to "save the day". you shoudl rather say "Sony is not using digital".

i find it funny how you use current gen situation to base next gen sales whne it is obviuos the tables have turned.

I find it hilarious how you think sony can eat the losses of a failed console and how consoles are not totally fucked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Their product line is tanking, entertainment is the only thing keeping them afloat at this point. In fact, people want sony to leave most of the electronics market.

Sony can't offer the same services PC can, and it sure as hell won't draw many developers. Its like Microsoft trying to get indies, its transparent and late.

Since you just said consoles as they stand are completely stuck in the past, nothing else you can say will make it better. Console manufacturers don't want digital. Consoles are screwed in the long term, its been known for years. Its gotten expensive to the point only publishers can make games, and by the time digital rolls around they are too influential to let it happen. End game is consoles inevitably die when the costs get too much and stagnation forces customers away.

So SOny doesn't want digital, and Microsoft wants DRM locked digital that caters to publishers. So in your own words: "consoles are fucked."

And minecraft did not sell more on console. Xbox's sales are 7 million, compared to PC's 11 million.

You also forget that this argument started because, in this scenario, Sony starts telling publishers what they can and can't do by limiting DRM. Publishers will not like it at all. The main rule in the console market is to respect each other's right to profit. Been said many times.

In fact, you suggested that Sony should have a crusade against DRM when its the worst business decision imaginable. Publishers won't allow being bossed around when they are the biggest companies in console gaming. Companies that you said are huge, yet are somehow not most of the publishers on consoles.

If you are going to backpedal, take some damn responsibility instead of trying to put it on me.

And gamestop having issue? It won't have issue as long as publishers and consoles continue to be expensive and anti consumer. Which is to say forever.

And lastly, Nintendo's "huge sales" sure as hell aren't here now because no one is buying anything from them. And you ccall me "living in the past" when I "use current gen situations."

Ultratwinkie:
[snip]

Sony can eat the losses. at what cost is a different question. but they dont have to eat the loses to begin with, so that discussion is going nowhere.
some analyst shouting that "electrinics are worth 0" isnt realyl sainyg much. its the kind of analyst that predicted Wii will be end of nintendo, well, you know the kind.
Sony is profitable all around, while Microsoft is seeing a decline now that they are attemting to force their win8, new office and other "Features" that people dont want.

Sony CAN offer similar service for their PS4. Will they is a different question (as in, would that be proftiable).

COnsole manufacturers can get consoles screwed, yes indeed, i dont deny that. costumers are already runing away (remember the threads of "im going to buy PC, help me choose one"?
Fair enough, i did had the old PC sales number for Minecraft. it did sell like crazy at launch.

Sony already told publishers what they can and cant do. Publishers wont like it, but they will play ball. Why? once again, sony has the majority of their costumers. and no publisher that has a brain on his shoulders will ignore that kind of market share.
No, im not suggesting that sony should have a crusade. im suggesting that sony should continue on providing a service that is geared towards its costumers, thus earning the lion market share, and turning the tables in such a way that it is publishers that have to paly ball and not theo ther way around. When you got a machine that is owned by 75% userbase, noone but the very stupid is going to ignore you. I guess you could compare this to windows vs Mac. most people program for windows only or for both as windows has way bigger market share.

Just because you are huge, does not mean there are no other huge players around. in a market as big as gaming being a huge company does not mean you can go monopoly on the market, and this was proven wnhe ubisoft was forced to take back its DRM decisions and when rockstar DRM failed spectaculary for GTA4 and they pretty much gave up on PC altogether.

Gamestop reported loses according to latest news. i dont think getting loses is good way to run a business, do you? Thing with being anticonsumer is that consumers run away from you, and once an alternative is found (in this case Sony), they will flock there en-mass, leaving you alone with your anticonsumer practices. and you will be forced to go there and play by their rules.

Yes, nintendo isnt selling now, but really, nintendo isnt even in the race anymore. WiiU can easily be labeled a currentgen (PS3, Xbox360) console for all intents and purposes, that launched very late. Nintnedo is a historical example of how it can stand on first party alone. What will come of it now we will have to wait and see.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:
[snip]

Sony can eat the losses. at what cost is a different question. but they dont have to eat the loses to begin with, so that discussion is going nowhere.
some analyst shouting that "electrinics are worth 0" isnt realyl sainyg much. its the kind of analyst that predicted Wii will be end of nintendo, well, you know the kind.
Sony is profitable all around, while Microsoft is seeing a decline now that they are attemting to force their win8, new office and other "Features" that people dont want.

Sony CAN offer similar service for their PS4. Will they is a different question (as in, would that be proftiable).

COnsole manufacturers can get consoles screwed, yes indeed, i dont deny that. costumers are already runing away (remember the threads of "im going to buy PC, help me choose one"?
Fair enough, i did had the old PC sales number for Minecraft. it did sell like crazy at launch.

Sony already told publishers what they can and cant do. Publishers wont like it, but they will play ball. Why? once again, sony has the majority of their costumers. and no publisher that has a brain on his shoulders will ignore that kind of market share.
No, im not suggesting that sony should have a crusade. im suggesting that sony should continue on providing a service that is geared towards its costumers, thus earning the lion market share, and turning the tables in such a way that it is publishers that have to paly ball and not theo ther way around. When you got a machine that is owned by 75% userbase, noone but the very stupid is going to ignore you. I guess you could compare this to windows vs Mac. most people program for windows only or for both as windows has way bigger market share.

Just because you are huge, does not mean there are no other huge players around. in a market as big as gaming being a huge company does not mean you can go monopoly on the market, and this was proven wnhe ubisoft was forced to take back its DRM decisions and when rockstar DRM failed spectaculary for GTA4 and they pretty much gave up on PC altogether.

Gamestop reported loses according to latest news. i dont think getting loses is good way to run a business, do you? Thing with being anticonsumer is that consumers run away from you, and once an alternative is found (in this case Sony), they will flock there en-mass, leaving you alone with your anticonsumer practices. and you will be forced to go there and play by their rules.

Yes, nintendo isnt selling now, but really, nintendo isnt even in the race anymore. WiiU can easily be labeled a currentgen (PS3, Xbox360) console for all intents and purposes, that launched very late. Nintnedo is a historical example of how it can stand on first party alone. What will come of it now we will have to wait and see.

> says Sony is profitable all around.

>> Already sees evidence to the contrary in front to fhim.

Let me put this into something you can understand:

Sony lacks profit everywhere but entertainment. Its insurance wing does more than hardware.

Microsoft wants WIndows 8 to be relevant, loses money but still eaten by profuts from its business focusef divisions.

Neither are in any shape to take any sort of hit. if the xbox doesn't make windows 8 cool, then it would be a bust.

Sony is too frail right now to go on crusades, so DRM is permited. Hopes the current gen repeats itself and hopes gamers won't notice.

I have destroyed every single argument you made for the last page, and you repeat the same rhetoric that customer base somehow means something. Gamers don't have patience or any sort of loyalty.

Look at the Wii U, its a cheap no frills games console with no DRM. A throwback to PS2 days, a glory age of consoles. The very thing gamers have been begging for for the last 5 yars. No one buys it because no third party support. Don't you see how the PS4 can easily share the same fate? Publishers found out they can fill a console by not supporting it already. It already has a precedent.

Ubisoft took off its DRM because it was unreliable, since most PC games now are steam it was redundant and only flooding them with complaints of non working games. People found out steam was the only DRM you really needed in a digital age. The branding alone commands huge loyalty. Consoles don't get any of those luxuries. They can't do what PC does. Again.

Windows market share is dropping like a rock. It kept trying to lock own and monopolize what developers can and can't do on its OS. It wants to be so much like apple that people would rather go apple than go with a cheap knockoff. Developers are going Linux, a true free platform. So now thanks to steam there is a drive to have multi-OS or full blown linux games.

Funny how that echoes what I am saying that you can't bite the hand that populates your platform with games and expect them to just sit there. Doesn't matter if windows had market share, developers are leaving if Windows 8 is any indication of the future.

Now are you done making flimsy excuses and actually debate or are you going to waste my time with more false information?

Ultratwinkie:

I have destroyed every single argument you made for the last page, and you repeat the same rhetoric that customer base somehow means something. Gamers don't have patience or any sort of loyalty.

Now are you done making flimsy excuses and actually debate or are you going to waste my time with more false information?

And i guess we will end here before it gets ugly.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here