*punch*

Just keep punching people!

I think it's time you provided some info, I've done enough research for you. I am not taking sides, I don't even know if I agree with OP. I'm on a forum to exchange ideas, not only here to debate. What I wanted to show was that this is a debatable topic, and one that isn't as obvious as some here may have wanted to make it out to be.

This far in the thread I've argued for BOTH sides of the debate, reenforcing this idea even more. What I want is for YOU now to participate and actually bring something of value rather than calling people unreasonable and playing a game of personalities. Bring SOMETHING to the table.

As such, feel free to quote my last post that had the evidence you asked for and reply with numbers, either that or quote my first post where I argued in favor of Sony. Your pick.

That can already be highlighted as an obvious erroneous statement - how could it be a mutual understanding ? What would third party developpers gain when they are competing against cheaper/bundled/abundant first party games ?

The only logic response they may have is not investing too much on development itself and make sub-par games.

I'd like to know exactly what you want me to argue.
Op's comment was "sony needs to bundle to get games on million sellers list."
Which i believe is actually a direct response to my "lbp is a flop" thread which had both of this op's posts being debated shortly before this thread was made.

Not doing a psych profile, this thread is just legitimately, from his own words, saying that sony bundles their games tomake them million sellers.

I honestly don't think anything youve brought to the table even addresses that.
You seem to think it's about the strategy of bundling as a whole, but then you keep referring to sony for some reasone and ignore the other consoles, so its hard to figure out what your point is.

Bundling works. It works for all the consoles, which is why they all do it. Bundling gives consumers an extra reason to buy one console over another, and with attach rate, ends up making profits over the course of just a few games.

This isnt a discussion about bundling, which is what you said you thought it was in your first post. This is galaki saying that sony bundles to sell its games because nobody will buy them on their own, then very specifically points out that the difference is thatNintendo,( who also bundles) sells their games for full price while bundled.

So now, do you want me to discuss what YOU'VE changed the thread into, o do you want me to address the op like I've been doing and what you have not?

I have no clue what the history of it is, and I honestly don't care.

Looking at OP and OP alone, he mentioned this concern, verbatim:

"is Sony just cutting into their profit when they utilize this way too often?"

My first post addresses this head on, so that officially discredits your first critique (bolded). My reply to your critique of his mentioning the same issue with Vita is also on track with that concern.

Then my second main post contained numbers to help explain what you replied to me with, basically asking me how the PS3 managed to be #1 while having flops.

So basically, YOU fucked up.

Let's not be silly guys Sony bundles a lot that's just the way it is and no amount of belly aching is going to change the fact. And I believe that is the reason that some of their games reach the million dollar mark and have exceptional longevity

Fighter im not sure you understood what you bolded.
I was saying that sony ot bundles third partu games and has put third party games on ps+.
Why? Because it creates awareness. Notice that these bundled games already have sequels. Notice that the ps+ games are games that have sequels (like ps+ borderlands recently)
Third parties are likely aware that ps+ helps theirNEW full priced games at the expense of unlikely prequel sales.
Note that this was a specific point tgat dodece made that i was addressing, not hardware bundling.

@theprof00

Everything about how you are going about this debate is wrong. Your derailing another thread to pursue it. You are being needlessly derogatory to other posters. Your grammar has become atrocious. You are screaming in the body of your posts. You are even missing a lot of transitional material. You are not coming out of this in a good light. You are making yourself look foolish. You might have a point, but I wouldn't know that, because reading your recent posts is like listening to a person throwing a tantrum. Calm down, and put together a solid chain of reasoning. I am trying to be a friend here. You aren't making a lot of sense.

My point being that third parties have to be more keen about selling their titles at retail prices. There is a rather big difference between selling a game for sixty dollars, and licensing a game to Sony for a dollar. The profit margins alone mean a great deal. Developers make a lot more money from retail sales the bulk digital sales. I suppose it is like getting a bag of Skittles instead of a full coarse meal. Nobody would turn them down, but if given the choice it is plain to see what they would go with.

The tradeoff isn't exactly beneficial. It is just better then nothing. If Sony is going to force it. Then the developers have to go along, or they won't get anything. If a developer refuses to license their game to Sony. It really isn't any sweat off Sony's balls. There are plenty of fish in the sea after all, but that developer is still left having to find a way to sell their retail game. In a market that is being undercut by free ware.

I do not see much difference in what Nintendo and MS do as well. Their is not only bundling that helps million sellers but also other incentives like Halo demo on the crackdown game.