RolStoppable said:
That's like saying everything is an EA box, Square-Enix box, Capcom box etc. Sounds ridiculous because it is. As for the topic, Sony is definitely making decisions that follow in Microsoft's footsteps, although at a slower and more careful rate. It doesn't make sense though. For Microsoft it did because they suck as a console manufacturer and can't sell an adequate amount of hardware at an adequate price to make it all profitable. But Sony was and is in a position where they can clear the 100 million threshold for hardware sales which is a huge base for a closed ecosystem. Even when the hardware itself is rarely sold at a profit at any point in the lifecycle and even when the first party output has a dry spell, the large installed base generates sufficient profits with third party royalties from game sales and microtransactions as well as Sony's own subscription tiers. It's right there in the financial reports, after all. The move towards third party publishing is a very risky one for Sony because it threatens their console business and therefore the profits it generates from it. The gains from third party publishing may very well be offset by shrinking console sales and a diminished ecosystem, so Sony's management is acting shortsighted. But they already did when they issued their GaaS strategy, so it's not shocking that they would make another mistake. They are once again chasing a higher risk, higher reward scheme while giving up on a winning formula that has lower theoretical profits but is much safer to accomplish and sustain. |
I actually think it's the opposite. Chasing third-party sales is the much safer and more surefire return on investment, which is what Sony has always done with their console business. Chasing GaaS was all about market trends and believing they could monopolise it, but it backfired spectacularly.
Nintendo have proven that building your own exclusive market built on quality brands and unique development actually has more potential, but it also requires generations of building a unique identity and establishing a large foundation of developers and development quality, which neither Sony nor Micorosft have the patience or skill to do.
Now both of the corporate controlled platforms who let their brands that once had potential wither away, are having to accept their fate in the larger pool of AAA multi-platform blandness, where the bubble of outragous development costs and cycles has already popped, and everyone is questioning where their future is.
Meanwhile Nintendo are the one brand in gaming that has insulated themselves from all the madness and uncertainty, with a self-reliant and sustainable ecosystem that isn't at the whim of lazy market trends. They are now able to capitalise further on their brand value with expansions into other markets like movies and theme parks which have already been massively successful, while their stock price continues to soar. All of it within their control, they reap all the benefits.
Nintendo's path has required a lot more risk, since they couldn't rely on a major mega-corp to just buy anything they wanted, but the return on investment has been vastly superior.
