| Adinnieken said:
That said, and to tie this all back to the original argument. Sony, by offering free game rentals is directly paying (money hatting) games. There was one developer who acknowledged, had Sony not paid him to offer the game through PS+, the game would not have made as much money, but more importantly it incentivized him to create another game for Sony's platform. Microsoft has throughout its history kept competitors in the game, because it needs those competitors. Sony on the other hand is a company that tends to try to crush its competitors. I think that's in part because the two companies come from two very different industries. Microsoft comes from a collaborative industry, computing, where sometimes competitors aren't the competitors everyone thinks they really are. Sony from a winner take all industry, electronics. |
While I agree and disagree with much of you what said here. A well thought out post that it is, these 2 paragraphs I'd like to comment on.
The first paragraph is surely a good thing, without PS+ money, that developer might now not be in business making games. Direct money hatting as you may see it, to me it's a way of generating more revenue for the entire industry. That developer doesn't have to now make games only for Sony, that was their choice, whether in thanks or just because of business relationships. For bigger games, it might not matter as much, it's just extra revenue and potential for extra purchased DLC or an extra purchase when the 'lease' time on PS+ has run out.
The second paragraph, you do know MS don't you? What makes you think MS the OS developer hasn't tried to 'crush' it's opponents? I can walk into a PC World and not see a single laptop offering Linux as an operating system. I can't even get Windows 7, have to get 8. They were also fined a number of times by the EU for breaking competition rules on IE.
Hmm, pie.
