If it makes you feel any better. I didn't and haven't read that thread.

Dodece
Firstly i am on a shitty phone browser that is nearly incapable of returning to previous sections of the post. I cannot go back or delete really, so you'll just have to understand that, which I'm pretty sure i told you last week already.
As for transitional material, the point at which happy started arguing with me had not transitioned. Sales was arguing that ms doesnt bundle as much, and me and others were debating that, it is directly relevant to the op.
Happy came in and started saying that i was off topic and that sales' ideas on the opwere interesting.
Yet happy seems to think that I've been arguing against his"sidequest" portion of their thread simply because i disagreed with his response on sales2099.
By disagreeing with that point, i did not mean to, and do not see how i involed myself into the "question of strategic relevanceof bundling that happy was having his ownconversation about.
My capitalization of words is because i cant italicise easily on the pgone.

If your statement about my appearance was just that, afriendly commentary regarding appearance and language, then thank you but i already know. Since you did not address a specific point i made that was wrong, i will take that as my points being "not foolish".

Also to address the point you just made, in your previous post you said "sony", and in your recent post you said it hurts the developers at large, so i would like to know what the difference is, and why we are looking solely at sony here.
Also, i pointed out that ps+ games arebgood marketing tools to provide awareness for new releases, using borderlands as an example. I don't think gearbox was held at gunpoint to have bl1 on ps+ for free and likely helped to improve sales of bl2. Given that, i dont think there are only negatives involved in the discussion you bring up, but rather a plus and minus situation that can be discussed further. But my impression is that you are insisting the negatives outweigh the positives, so I'll tell you like I've told happy twice now, I am away from a computer and can provide a more detailed analysis when i have access to one.

@theprof00

You are barely comprehensible, but I gather the phone you are using is a real piece of crap. That is good to know, because I thought you were having some kind of break down. You might understand it when you get to a better terminal. As for the other things you typed. I am sorry I just couldn't understand what exactly you said.

So then why did you make this thread?
Is it a response to similar threads about sony bundling?
It would be hard to believe this came out of nowhere.

Wait....which games are you talking about? I don't think Sony has bundled any games that haven't even reached a million...unless you count new releases.

To be honest, when i bought Uncharted 1, 2 and 3 i waited 6 months until a price cut, and this happens to me with a lot of PS3 exclusives so for most of them i'm waiting a bit, there are lots of games that i have bought and have yet to open them.

I think it's a good thing for the costumer, but maybe they are degrading the value of their own games.

This is only the case on cirtain games.  Mainly, Motorstorm and Resistance, which is why sequels have sold so much less. Nowdays, PS3 games either sell well or they are complete flops. The only PS3 games that have sold legit without bundles are MGS4, GT5 and GOW3.

Then again, Forza and Fable series bundled their way past the 3M mark. (still good sales regardless)

I'm going to respond to your post first because it's far simpler, than to confront Happy.

You first acknowledged the possible implications of heavy bundling with regard to their affect on third party sales.
Some of your key points were that Sony was playing a shell up game wherein they dictate what sells and what doesn't, and another point was that with consumers being given 10 free games per year (and a normal 3 game attach rate per year), third parties are going to find it difficult to find space, possibly resulting in driving off third party developers.

A point you then make later is that third parties have difficulty selling their games at retail. Those sales are more desirable over bulk digital sales. I agree. You said it would be more and more difficult to subsist as a third party developer, given this scenario, while in a market that is being undercut by freeware.

So, to answer your points:

It's hard to quantify exactly how much is being lost here. We don't really have data telling us that free games will push retail games out of the way. Sure, if a consumer only intended on spending 200$ a year on games was forced to buy a Sony game, that would impede on left over income available for purchasing third party games. However, this is a bit different than saying the consumer only plans on buying three games a year. We can only really use a dollar value to quantify this, and so we cannot look at a gamer as being an "x number of games purchaser", but an "x number of dollars consumer". In that sense, you can see my problem. Free games don't impede on that spending.

The other problem is that the assumption of a "200$ spender" is a vague label applied to the whole of the demographic. Surely there are gamers that in some years spend 400, and some that only buy used, and some that only get 2 games per year, one for christmas and one for a birthday....for example. It would be suitable in many cases to say that in some years, when a lot of desirable games are released, more is spent. So the whole discussion is a rather grey determination of the facts to begin with. Nonetheless..

...what does impede on a "x dollar consumer" is the 50$ yearly subscription fee. This certainly cuts into spending. However...

....In one of my posts to you, I spoke about this next logical step in the discussion, which is, "is the ps+ offering in any way positive for third party developers".

What I had been attempting to explain was that the understanding of ps+ is just as grey as the market. PS+ allows for developers to show off previous installments to drum up interest in upcoming games. As evidence for this, look at the ps+'s additional offerings, such as

-early demos
-guaranteed beta entries

PS+ allows a dev like Gearbox to tell its marketbase, "hey, we have a new game coming out and it's pretty great. Here's the first game which was very well received. Please play and enjoy it, and hopefully, you'll be interested in our new game which we think is pretty awesome". PS+ also gives third parties a chance to deliver a "dlc platform", enticing people who were not necessarily interested in spending money on a full game, to maybe buy a multiplayer pass, or some skins. Believe it or not, there's a lot of people who aren't willing to throw down money for a game, but are totally content buying content for a free game they are given. In fact, it's the entire basis of free-to-play market, which recent studies suggest aren't as 'cheap' as previously thought (a majority of sales happens at 9.99 and upward)

PS+ can act as a nice boost to marketing awareness, and it can help sway consumers through letting them play more than the constrained framework of the demo. I don't think that third parties are being strong-armed, as you suggest, into licensing their games for 1$. I believe they are openly welcoming the opportunity to advertise their game, while getting paid to do so.

Xbox live pricing for a couple weeks of advertising, including moving video, and demos can run 500k$ for just a week or two. This offering allows ps+ to generate these companies sales while giving the consumers, really, a much better exposure to an upcoming game.

That's my two cents on that subject. PS+ has both positives and negatives in store for third party developers, and it will be difficult to ascertain side weighs more. One thing is certain, it is not easily obvious how ps+ affects third party sales, but I will trust you to understand that there are indeed positives involved.

"is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?" This is written in regard to the OP title, which is "Sony relying on heavily bundled and or deep discount, just to get games into million sellers list"

verbatim.

"My first post addresses this head on, so that officially discredits your first critique (bolded)."

Your actual first post is as follows:

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games. It's the catridge business strategy where you sell the console to sell many more games (otherwise the games would be pre-loaded).
If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.
OP is arguing whether this strategy is a solid one. Now discuss.

Let's look at the OP again now that we have it all on one page, along with your understanding of the thread OP.

Sony is relying on heavily bundled games and deep discounts just to get their games into the million sellers list, but is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often? (This sentence is composed of the title, and the OP sentence referring directly to the title)

You explained to Maverick, quite rudely ffs, that-

Video game consoles are sold to make profit on games.If games are bundled, there will be no profit made with the bundled game.
OP is arguing whether this strategy of bundling games is a solid one.

Now, your understanding of the thread would be accurate if the OP was actually asking about the strategy of bundling. However, it is not. OP is very specifically relating to a unique strategy of bundling AND price cuts for the purpose of getting games into 'the million sellers list'. He is saying that this is OK, but if it is utilized 'way too often', this strategy just cutting into their profits.

Good, we've gotten that out of the way, along with your purported notion that you've 'officially discredited' my criticism that your understanding of the OP is different from the OP.

My reply to your critique of his mentioning the same issue with Vita is also on track with that concern.

My criticism of him mentioning Vita stems from the fact that he is himself abandoning his own OP.

And here's why.
Remember the OP, and how it's trying to quantify the value of bundling games "just to get them into the million seller's list"? The object of bundling CoD and AssCreed is for a very different purpose. The bundling on Vita currently is to sell Vitas. Sony wants customers to be enticed. Furthermore, the bundle being offered was for 249$, the normal current price, and, yep, this is a holiday when there should be a price cut. Currently the material cost is roughly 160 for the 3g model. This materials mockup was done one year ago. The price has likely come down, and witout a pricedrop, it's hard to say just how much they are actually losing by "bundling" these big games as opposed to giving their console a very nice incentive to customers. The question is, 'is it worth it to Sony to sacrifice at most, 40$ on bundling a big name game, to entice consumers into buying the system'.

Sony isn't even cutting the price of the hardware during a holiday, but including a game. Shocking.

So yes, even his 'clarification of the OP for people calling him a troll' was off his own topic.

I will respond to the other parts of your post later.

OMG people writing essays in here.....