nightsurge said:
supercat said:
nightsurge said:
supercat said:
nightsurge said:
supercat said:
All Pachter is saying is that epic wont like being locked into supporting just the 360, when the PS3-slim has really been a game changer and that it makes a lot more sense to support the PS3 now. That's it and the idea that the PS3 would get more attention from developers is only obvious given its sales lately. |
If thats what he is saying, then all the PS3 first party devs must be up in arms over the larger userbase on 360 this whole time that could have doubled up or more on all of their sales!!!
|
No. Sony has had to moneyhat significantly, or else why would they even have 1st party developers up until recently? What passes for critical thinking around here ..
|
I still don't follow you nor Pachter's logic. Microsoft obviously offered them an incentive in this deal, same as any first/second party developer. You don't sign contracts for exclusivity without some sort of incentives!
So as I said, if that's really what Pachter is saying, then any and all first party devs on either platform should be crying rivers because of all the lost profit and there would be no more exclusives.
|
Ok, I see your error now. There is no "lost profits" when considering Pacter's statements, just greater profits that could be obtained if Epic wanted to do a multiplat deal. Also, you are indeed correct with the detail that MS did offer an incentive to stay exclusive, BUT you miss the bigger picture, as neither MS nor epic were really expecting the success of the PS3 slim, and because of that MS wouldnt have been offering epic as much for exclusivity on Gears, if they knew that it would be rocking the ball out of the park every week with hardware.
I dont think that you realize you dont have to pay all that much for exclusivity when your console is clearly beating the other one, like 360 has over the PS3 for a while now, so Pacter is just saying that if they weren't locked into a contract, that epic could get a better deal by going multiplat. There's no reason to pay an incentive to stay exclusive when your console is the only choice ( excluding the wii of course) that is selling.
|
I think you don't realize what little affect the PS3 Slim has had over the big picture. The sales momentum has been shifting back and forth for the last 4 years. What the Slim + PRICE CUT (price cut being the big motivator these last few months, not the Slim) did was only countering what the 360 did last year, which was only a counter to what the PS3 did the year before and so on. This slight shift each year would have had little to no affect on the exclusivity deals.
Greater profits that could have been obtained = lost profits. Same difference. If they weren't "lost" there would be no reason to be upset as Pachter seems to think they are. You don't get upset just at the notion alone that you could have made more profits. The Gears contract was signed when neither console had even launched yet, so again, I fail to see the relevance this has to either you or Pachter's statements.
|
This is ignorant. Look, most companies can come in with a cheaper product with a given die cut in its chips, but Sony did that and then some, they cut the manufacturing price significantly. Sony can make a price cut any time that they like, but the less it costs to manufacture the slim, the more $$$$ that they can shovel back into the business whether its investing in Home, more exclusives, general advertising or whatever.
And you are also incorrect in that in a situation where greater profits were not obtained, doesn't equal a loss because no actual losses were obtained. We are comparing a plausible scenario with a real one anyway, so you cant say that anything was "lost" even though you are quite ignorantly insisting on that. Seriously, are you going to college? How educated are you? I doubt you have much beyond a job at 7-11 and high school degree.
