By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
fireburn95 said:


It's called being realistic. If sony could get ps1 & ps2 on shit ps3 architecture, and ms can get 360 on xb1, you don't think it's at least feasible sony could've got ps1 & 2 at the very least on ps4. If you didn't realise, this is a business where the goal is to make money, not to cater to fans whims. Microsoft could've brought BC earlier, but they didn't expect the uphill battle they'd have to climb

It's good that you are realistic because for some reason a lot of pure Sony fans believe Sony does things because they care about their fans instead of caring about making money.  So now that Sony has this huge market share lead, I am wondering if we will see a lot of money decisions from Sony, and how the fans will paint those decisions.


Well they do. Both companies do. But you have to find the right balance between what's financially right and whats morally right. 

Sony made the moral decision to not go with the always online and drm bs. That probably was a costly decision (at the time) but it worked out for the better because they could build a healthy user base.

Sony made the business decision not to have EA Access. While fans would love it, it doesn't make sense for them to have a service which basically eliminates the fact they can make more money from EA's games post-launch sales.

PS NOW is expensive now, but when they realise no one is using it, they'll make the more consumer decision to lower the price or offer it as part of a subsidised ps plus bundle or something like that.