dukerx2 said:
burninmylight said:
I see your point. But my question is, why do you think Sony has this tiny, miniscule PS+ budget that only has room in the mini-fridge for so many PS+ titles, and eliminating PS3 and Vita would somehow mean more room in the mini-fridge for PS4? If it wasn't beneficial to Sony, why would Sony still be supporting those platforms four years into PS4, and if it wasn't beneficial to publishers of games on PS+, why would they want their PS3 and Vita games on PS+?
That's like saying Steam should stop supporting Mac and Linux because it would somehow mean more games for PC. I highly doubt it's support of those OSes has no bearing on the number of games released for PC.
It's like saying the Humble Bundle people need to stop doing PC and Mac software bundles and focus only on Steam game bundles because that would mean more money for them, and the indies and publishers that put their games into Humble Bundle don't profit in some way from doing so. Actually, everyone seems to benefit from these. I've read interviews saying as much.
|
Afraid of alienating PS3 and Vita owners, I think is a big part of it. Also you take away the free games from PS3 what reason does PS3 owners have to keep plus. They would likly lose money there. It be nice to see the the details finacially with plus. For example, do they pay developers a set amount per download or is it a lump sum up front. I just feel whatever money is spent on PS3 and Vita in general could be reduced a lot. But I agree with you Its for the most part good for the devs to go with plus.
|
I'd like to know full details of the agreement between Sony and pubs with games on the service too, but we definitely don't need numbers to know that it's lucrative for all parties involved. Heck, even Nintendo is about to get in on the subscriber act not too long from now.
