| DonFerrari said: Do you really think if publishers weren't demanded to pay royalties and be restricted by platform holders they wouldn't release their games there? Just as with PC or Android, they should be allowed to have their own stores if they want or release without vetoing by platform holder, that said by they not choosing to do so they wouldn`t have access to the devkits, code, etc. That basically already takes care of most of it. Why do you think the publishers even when having PC without any of this go and launch on consoles? Why do they release in Google Store if they can also make their own store or release to direct download to search on the web? Because that generates more money. You don`t need dictatorship powers to flourish the platform. |
I really don't get this rationale.
Who are these dictators?
OK... help me understand this.
Sony makes a console. Markets it and sells it to as many people they can. Then on this console, they create a digital store. This is like making a product and then making a store within the product where content can be sold.
Now, sony gets royalties from anyone building games for their console. That was the whole point of them making the console to begin with. To create a platform for developers to build their games and sell it to a very wide audience. It's like using the music from an artist in the movie you are making, you pay royalties to that artist.
But sony as I mentioned earlier, also has a store, where like any store, they get a cut from selling games on it. But because this is a closed platform, every game sold via the store is charged a flat rate, 30%. This includes royalties and the store cut.
So in this case, is sony being a dictator? And if they are, what is the alternative, have you release your game on their platform, using their SDK, and giving your game to their audience, and then charging their audience for content tied to your "free" game through some separate external store and they, in turn, get nothing? How is that fair?
But you know what is really crazy about this? Epic, also has a store. They also charge publishers releasing content on said store 30% or whatever for the games sold via their store. But yet, they don't want to pay other stores/platforms for content they sell to the audiences to those platforms? You really don't see what's wrong with this picture?
And it's not about what anyone should be allowed to do or not do. It's about standards. If I have platform, I want to guarantee the experience of all my users on that platform. I do not want my audience subscribing to 20 different publishers and going to 20 different stores to acquire content for their games only platform. While to ou that may seem good on paper, imagine a world where every single publisher has its own store for its own content. Can you even start to imagine how complicated that become to the end-user?
People shout and champion the whole free and fair rhetoric all the time, but its usually just them saying everyone should be allowed to do whatever they want. But I believe, allowing everyone to do whatever they want is freedom, and it isn't fair. As the saying goes, one man's liberties end where another man begins. So this is simple, if epic does not want to abide by the rules set by any specific platform holder, then they would not support said, platform holder. If them doing so hurts the platform older more than it hurts them, then the platform holder will change its rules.
Last edited by Intrinsic - on 16 August 2020
