Sony going third party is an excellent idea for gamers.

[Azuren]

Chazore said:

Azuren said:

Origin did so well, too.

Origin is still alive

 

Sony knows that if they were to release a Storefront that people would only use it to purchase their exclusives, as most are already heavily invested in Steam. And if people aren't buying their games on Sony's storefront, than all that cheddar those games would have made being exclusive suddenly vanishes. I know many PC gamers find it "anti-consumer", but their demands would cost Sony, not make them money like they want to think it would.

You act as if you definitely know that there is only a single path in the future, as if everything is already predetermined. You forget that people choose all the other clients out there, but even then you'll set up the rest to being enxt to useless because they aren't magically churning out CoD sales (but I laugh at that since mobile sales dwarf CoD and the console market altogether, so we should use that instead if we're going to compare massive to small).

Their demands have made others money so far, rather than cause supposed massive failure rates of anyone daring to pander to that market.

 

And Call of Duty was simply an example of a AAA multiplatform that Sony wants people buying on their console. In reality, this extends to ALL games. Sony makes money from every title sold on their platform, and their exclusives exist only to bolster the population of the platform, not necessarily to make money on their own.

No, you're basing CoD as something of an ip that generates insane sales, rather than anything else out there. You are using a franchise that is multiplatform (not even exclusive at this point) and it's multiplat sales vs another market and asking said market to generate the numbers you think is needed for that market to be "viable".

Being alive doesn't mean it wants to live ;)

 

Okay, so if Sony were to make a storefront, you would definitely make all future purchases on it, right?

 

Right, you know much more about the intention of my post than I do. Please, take the floor and cover both sides of the argument, I'm clearly not needed. Wait, no, you don't. I used Call of Duty as an example of a widely known and popular multiplatform game that is specifically not exclusive. I swear, I have to explain this to you every time and it's like trying to eat soup with a damn fork.

 

1. Make platform.
2. Get people on that platform. This can be accomplished by offering exclusive features, which range from services and functionality to even games and content.
3. Larger userbase generates more game sales. Any and all game sales on said console generate reveneue for said console, as companies like EA and Activision Blizzard have to pay a percentage of their earnings on the platform in question to the manufacturer of the platform.
4. Larger userbase draws in more users through a desire to play with friends as well, which is why Microsoft was so eager to have crossplatform online and Sony wasn't- This was an attempt by Microsoft to abolish one of Sony's advantages.
5. Rinse and repeat 2-4 to continue making more money year over year.

It's really not rocket science, and it's why Sony won't release on PC until they either own a PC OS or are deciding to back out of the console industry.