By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Adinnieken on 30 October 2013
Edit Thread
The Fury said:
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.

Actually, not a number of times.  One recently, and once before.  Fined no less for something else that other companies can do without a single question.  Apple is allowed to use Safari as their default browser that's included with the OS.  iTunes is the only available music store on the iPhone.  Only Microsoft is held to a different standard. 

The reason why you don't see a single laptop offering Linux as an operating system is that the majority of people who want to purchase a laptop do so for the purpose of either playing games, doing school work, or using it for business.  The market for Linux on the desktop (for personal use) is extremely limited.  This isn't Microsoft crushing its competitors, it's the fact that on the desktop Linux just can't compete. 

One the server side, it does compete and quite handily.  However, server administrators are technologically in a different class than the majority of consumers.  Linux is far too complicated for the average consumer.  The fact that smartphones sell so well should kind of clue you in to where consumers are headed.  They don't want to work with a command line.  Hell, they don't even want to deal with a menu to access their applications anymore they just want them there where they're quick and easily accessed.  Organization be damned.

Most companies abandoned their Linux on the desktop efforts because the business isn't there and the device manufacturers often don't provide support for their hardware on Linux. 

What Sony is doing could be good for gaming, no doubt, but it is much more limited.  The fact that Microsoft often had time exclusives in Gen7 actually worked in the PS3's favor.  PS3 development took longer, and while Microsoft may have benefitted from getting games or DLC early, it gave developers time to get the PS3 version ready for release and the money Microsoft paid funded that development.

You don't have indie developers saying, because of Sony I'm capable of releasing my game on multiple platforms.  Instead, you have them committing to Sony.