Phil Spencer: Sony buying third party games, all to do with money, not market share

[DonFerrari]

LudicrousSpeed said:

Burek said:

LudicrousSpeed said:

Is this the first time in 3 pages someone brought up the Wii and its massive userbase advantage? If so, congrats you win the thread.

I wonder why Nintendo turned down free CoD sponsorship?

So, you are resorting to hanging onto Nintendo thread to defend poor misunderstood Phil.

The answer is: Because CoD and most other 3rd party AAA games are aimed at adults, which do not hold a very large MARKETSHARE within the Nintendo family. Even little children know that.

See there? Now you're getting somewhere. Even if the first sentence of your post is pretty much unreadable due to terrible wording, and the insult in the last sentence was not needed, but you're finally making progress somewhere inbetween there.

I agree that the makeup of the Wii's userbase would make its marketshare advantage pretty irrelevant when it comes to 3rd party deals for the games MicroSony were moneyhatting last gen. Of course, I'd apply that same logic to the userbase of the PS4 right now. It might have a 10 million or whatever lead on Xbone in userbase, but that doesn't really matter when the games sell much closer than that, barring moneyhat deals. Which is what Phil means when he goes on to explain that every publisher has their own definition of the market.

Sony might get better marketing deals with some games because the userbase there will buy more copies of the game, enough to offset the revenue of a deal reached with MS, but that doesn't have anything to do with global marketshare. It's the same reason lots of Japanese games skipped the 360 last gen even though it sold just as much as PS3. The userbase there just won't buy many copies. I mean, most of you are so eager to apply this same logic when another console was leading in sales, yet you refuse to apply it to PS4 LOL.

But I am sure little children know this, and I hope I passed the litmus test. Now I am truly done with the thread.

Problem is Phil didn't said, it isn't solely dependent on Marketshare (but more on potential sales lost), he outright said it have NOTHING to do with marketshare... and that is the lie.