By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Phil Spencer: Sony buying third party games, all to do with money, not market share

DonFerrari on 06 August 2015

He is wrong . Square -enix ceo already explained it is based on passion



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
Samus Aran on 06 August 2015
Tachikoma said:
Samus Aran said:

you better warn the Roman and Medieval historians then, their entire historiography was based on predicting the future. I suggest looking under rocks.

Neither Tacitus, Livy, Caesar, Suetonius nor Sallust wrote of future events, just various intepretations of past roman history.

Some historians may choose to make predictions based off of what they learn through analysis of historical records, but that prediction is not encapsulated by the term historian nor is it the norm for such predictions to be made, the large majority of predictions that ARE made are massively off base, too.

So lets be clear here, being a historian does not mean you deal with the future, it means you deal with the past, if you make a prediction BASED off of the past, it is simple that, a prediction, and has no bearing at all on being a historian beyond the ill perceived notion that a future event will result based from past events alone.

The correct term for someone who explicitly deals with the future BASED off of the past is "futurist"

Try harder.

Everything about the future is a prediction, you realize that the future hasn't happened yet do you? ;)

You do realize that Romans used the past to look for ways to change their future? If you can't even understand one of the most basic thoughts in Roman thinking than I'm not sure why I'm having this discussion. Ancient Roman historians wrote pragmatic histories in order to benefit future statesmen (i.e how not to rule or how to rule by giving past examples). Suetonius is probably the biggest example of that. Tacitus wasn't an objective historian, his works served a moral function. Roman historians never made any pretenses about being objective, that was not the aim.

As for Caesar's work, it's self-promotion and a way to justify his (illegal) actions in Gaul. It served a much more important function than telling an objective story of the past.



kurasakiichimaru on 06 August 2015
IamAwsome said:
ethomaz said:
IamAwsome said:

He is right to a certain extent. Marketshare is one factor, but it's not the factor. Let's not pretend that publishers plaster PS4 logos all over games for free because that isn't the case. Bigger marketshare can certainly grease the wheels in some cases, but it doesn't actually guarantee anything. If marketshare had such a big influence then you wouldn't see the XB1 getting any exclusive marketing deals or exclusive indie games. Same with the PS3 last gen, and Xbox/GCN before that. An indie game like No Man's Sky going exclusive would proably be influenced by marketshare, but a major western AAA game like Mass Effect suddenly becoming exclusive to PS4 would obviosly not be influenced by marketshare. Titanfall, ROTTR, SF5, and DR3 are all unique situations. The jury is stil out on the FF7 remake..

Marketshare influences some games, but not all.

Call of Duty's marketing deal changing platforms was likely not influenced by marketshare because the game is big enough for people to know that it will be on every console no matter who markets the game, i.e, you won't fool people with ads like this.

OTOH a game like the Kingdom Hearts HD Remix being exclusive to PS3 was definitely influenced by marketshare because the PS3 is bigger in Japan. The same thing applies to Disgaea, and all of those niche Japanese PS4 exlcusives.

And then you have Assassin's Creed which was marketed on PS3 last gen, on Xbox One last year, and will be marketed on PS4 this year...

CoD deal was definitely affected by marketshare.

There is no doubt about that.

Activision will go always to the bigger userbase... that is why it was easy to Sony finally have the CoD deals.

I honestly don't think so because like I said, CoD has gotten so big that the game will sell a lot on both consoles either way. I highly doubt they care at all which stage the game gets shown on, just as long as someone else pas for the marketing. I also doubt it was any easier for Sony to get the deals. Signs point to MS having a 5 year CoD deal that they didn't renew. 

That logic kind of fails when Sony could just forget about the deal since CoD sells on PS4 systems anyway.

If anything Activision needs Sony more to tap into a market they haven't truly dominated yet like they did last gen with 360. Plus Sony is in prime position to take Asian markets this gen and those markets that are becoming much much more prominent this gen such as Brazil and Middle East. Playstation as a brand is more globally known than Xbox so considering the market has shifted in favor of Sony then those rising markets that were dominated by Sony last gen are also up for the taking for Activision.



WC4Life on 06 August 2015
IamAwsome said:

I honestly don't think so because like I said, CoD has gotten so big that the game will sell a lot on both consoles either way. I highly doubt they care at all which stage the game gets shown on, just as long as someone else pays for the marketing. I also doubt it was any easier for Sony to get the deals. Signs point to MS having a 5 year CoD deal that they didn't renew. 


I'd agree if it was still last-gen but not current-gen. The reason is Europe and ROTW. In NA it does not matter so much whether COD is PS4 or XBO since both have a lot of presence. However the situation is completely different in Europe and ROTW compared to last-gen. X360 actually had significant presence in these territories but current-gen XBO has lost marketshare so much that in many countries COD-marketing would go to waste completely. The amount of exposure COD-franchise will get by teaming up with PS4 is on a totally different level worldwide. Also Activision wants to sell as many DLC as possible and as fast as possible. Activision surely don't want to delay majority of userbase to purchase DLC, they want to take their money right away. This of course assumes PS4 will have the majority and I strongly believe it will because the install base difference is so huge now.

Then there is another point which is not related to marketshare. Halo 5 is coming and MS will give H5 gigantic push. COD-marketing being XBO would compete directly with H5. Now MS can use the saved COD-marketing money to promote H5 instead.



I cannot imagine toilet-free life.

Kebabs have a unique attribute compared to other consumables. To unlock this effect you need to wolf down a big ass kebab really fast, like under 10 minutes or so and wait for the effect to kick in. If done correctly your movements should feel unbelievably heavy to the point where you literally cannot move at all.

-Downtown Alanya Kebab magazine issue no.198

nosound_warmup on 06 August 2015

Phil has a vested interest in not telling the truth if it can affect the markets perception of his or his competitors product. It's really amazing that people will believe every word he says.



Around the Network
tiffac on 06 August 2015

We all know Sony is going bankrupt, they can't afford to moneyhat a game at the same amount that MS could.



Tachikoma on 06 August 2015
Samus Aran said:

Everything about the future is a prediction, you realize that the future hasn't happened yet do you? ;)

You do realize that Romans used the past to look for ways to change their future? If you can't even understand one of the most basic thoughts in Roman thinking than I'm not sure why I'm having this discussion. Ancient Roman historians wrote pragmatic histories in order to benefit future statesmen (i.e how not to rule or how to rule by giving past examples). Suetonius is probably the biggest example of that. Tacitus wasn't an objective historian, his works served a moral function. Roman historians never made any pretenses about being objective, that was not the aim.

As for Caesar's work, it's self-promotion and a way to justify his (illegal) actions in Gaul. It served a much more important function than telling an objective story of the past.

For all your meandering you're still wrong.

5-10 years isn't a short time, neither to gamers nor historians.

But hey, keep it up and i'll ban both of us for derailing.



Soonerman on 06 August 2015

So we can easily assume that everyone in this post saying this is bullshit has a PhD in Economics and a fortune 500 company, right? Cuz it sure seems that way



AEGRO on 06 August 2015
tiffac said:
We all know Sony is going bankrupt, they can't afford to moneyhat a game at the same amount that MS could.


LOL



Samus Aran on 06 August 2015
Tachikoma said:
 

For all your meandering you're still wrong.

5-10 years isn't a short time, neither to gamers nor historians.

But hey, keep it up and i'll ban both of us for derailing.

Nintendo is a company, not a gamer. :)

5 year plans aren't exactly long term for such companies! These companies think much further ahead (or at least they should). I'm sure the Wii Motion controller was already in the early stages of development in 2001. And they ended up dominating the next generation. I have faith in Nintendo doing the same with mobile games. To go from zero to billions of dollars in revenue (from mobile games) in just 5 years is a very short period of time.

This is on-topic enough, right?

 

Moderated -Tachikoma (Nintendo has nothing to do with topic)