| Pemalite said:
The cost of the hardware compared to the software has no real correllation to a developers profits.
A developer releasing a game on Steam has the same costs associated to it when compared to releasing a game on console.
I.E. Publisher takes a cut, then Valve/Xbox/Playstation/Nintendo take a cut on the game and all the DLC.
However big AAA titles are typically $10 cheaper and if you don't get at-least a 20% discount on the games full price on top of it, then you're doing it wrong as a PC gamer.
Valve however just didn't have to waste billions on building the hardware, Microsoft had already done the hard work on the software layer front.
The console space can support the PC's model of lower prices, it would simply mean that the yearly releases of Call of Duty, Assassins Creed, Battlefield will get less profit, probably make up for it in volume and the smaller developers will have more chance to thrive.
|
From a developer's standpoint yeah. But software developers aren't responsible for hardware in the PC space. That's why console can't support the PC's model yet. The loss leader model won't be satisfied by the PC model of not having to worry about it.
8th gen is basically midtier from the start and still selling on the loss leader model. I doubt console mafuacturering can be supported by the PC model.
Steam OS is a perfect example, if Sony or MS made gamingOSes rather than gaming consoles, then it would work but these wouldn't be convential consoels anyway
In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank
