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

Going off your previous post, I then say Sony can't afford to charge lower royalty fees anymore. Doesn't change my point, but probably sounds better to you.

Right...Because Sony is broke.

 

I saw Kaz at the welfare office getting his welfare stamp card.  I would have taken pictures, but I don't take pictures with the common folk.

 

/sarcasm

Alright, explain to me why a third party publisher would forego giving the PS3 version of a multiplatform game a more or less worthless bonus that would net them a benefit when it comes to royalty fees.

It's more reasonable to assume that Sony says that they won't be offering benefits and that's why third parties (in this case THQ) make the 360 and PS3 version equal.

If Sony  (A ) can't or won't offer benefits , Who then came up with the extra content idea  and why was it announced in the first place ,it seems to me that  MS policy in regards to on disc content in the case of Battlefield 1943 saw that derailed , and in Saint Rows reversal , more along the lines of we are your biggest market, in both cases what was being offered wasn't a big enough deal or had any real gains to offset  damaging relations with MS , The problem seems to stem from  the companys involved thinking that this was small potatos and they didn't expect a backlash.



Research shows Video games  help make you smarter, so why am I an idiot