RolStoppable said:
Looks like you don't know what a false dichotomy is. I mentioned the two logical options, but that doesn't mean that only those two options are available because I acknowledged alternatives. You can call the other options directionless, half-baked, not thought through, whatever. Giving up PS5 exclusivity while not coming close to matching Microsoft's offer is rather pointless, because then you might as well keep exclusivity. Horizon: Zero Dawn is the first of more to come. It's a recent change in strategy, because simultaneous development for PS and PC wasn't a thing when Layden was the boss. Newer games won't take three years to arrive on the PC, at least that's what I expect. Heck, there's the actual example of the Sony-funded Death Stranding that will be on PC in a year or less after its PS4 release. I mentioned it in a previous post that Sony and Nintendo aren't comparable when it comes to the importance of exclusive games. Saying how it is for Nintendo has no bearing on how it would play out for Sony, so all we would get are moot points. Likewise, the situation of Nintendo isn't applicable to Microsoft either. |
Yes, well an economist can acknowledge alternatives like Democratic Socialism, or a mixed economy, while still claiming that the only logical way forward is either untethered capitalism, or emulating North Korea. Said economist would still be presenting a false dichotomy.
Okay, I'll take the exclusives matter for Nintendo, but not Sony stance. I disagree with it, but it's consistent with what you've said before, which is the important part.
