By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

vivster said:
So you're suggesting them sell a console that is expensive not because of its hardware but because of deferred licensing? So not only would fewer people buy the console but the manufacturer will also get zero from game sales? How the fuck do you think that business plan will work? Literally no one would win in this scenario.

Fewer people getting the console is a projection you make, there is no assurance (but yes we could say it is a bigger risk) less people would buy it, it all depends on how you explain the concept to the customer to make he see that they are not paying more for less, they are paying it differently. One way to sweeten the pill was already gave, that you have monthly payment together with the sub. Let's say you make a contract for PS+ and a PS5 for 5 year, so you pay 10 per month on the HW plus 5 for the PS+ so a 15 bucks on the HW and a cheaper game to purchase (15 is close to what stadia is charging without you having the HW).

The consumer is too stupid to do math and those who will do the math are the ones the manufacturer will lose a shit ton of money on. This is a massive lose situation for the manufacturer. And if the manufacturer loses, everyone who bought the console will lose because of held back investment. To make this a win for the manufacturer you'd have to pay a lot more up front which makes everything even worse. Lowing the general price of games is also a terrible idea because it gives publishers room to increase the price again.

It's just overall really really terrible. Stores make their money off of game sales and there is nothing wrong with that.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.