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

So many of you have no business degrees. Look when your selling a product to someone, market share has nothing to do with it. 25m PS4s vs 13m XB1s means little. Both are recognised systems and some games sell better even on consoles with less sales. If every PS4 gamer were to buy the same game then yes you have an argument however games sell a few million at best on either system.

Its all to do with money. XB1 still only has half the user base then the PS4 but look at all the exclusives coming out, if market share was the reason then XB1 would have no exclusives or timed exclusives.

The sad part is fanboys believe companies go with other companies because they love them. Money talks. Sunset Overdrive and Titanfall didn't release on Xbox because they love MS, they released because MS paid them. Just like PS exclusives. Sony pays them and that's there focus this gen.



Around the Network

The frustration is strong...

And btw how dare they say something like "it's all about the money" after the Tomb Raider drama?



Except of course when the third party evaluates market performance and stipulates a minimum return clause to the deal, right phil, right phil??
Because not meeting that minimum return means the platform holder has to cover the remainder to meet it.

Minimum return clause is rarely ever added to a deal for a market leading platform unless its only leading by a small margin or if the worldwide sales for all systems is below 10m



Azzanation said:
So many of you have no business degrees. Look when your selling a product to someone, market share has nothing to do with it. 25m PS4s vs 13m XB1s means little. Both are recognised systems and some games sell bettern on consoles with less sales. If every PS4 gamer were to buy the same game then yes you have an argument however games sell a few million at best on either system.

Its all to do with money. XB1 still only has half the user base then the PS4 but look at all the exclusives coming out, if market share was the reason then XB1 would have no exclusives or timed exclusives.

The sad part is fanboys believe companies go with other companies because they love them. Money talks. Sunset Overdrive and Titanfall didn't release on Xbox because they love MS, they released because MS paid them. Just like PS exclusives. Sony pays them and that's there focus this gen.

Did you even read the OP? Spencer literally says that marketshare has no influence on the amount of money a platform holder has to pay for a third party exclusive or exclusive DLC. Anybody with a business degree can tell you that that's grade-A bullshit.



seriously dude? i mean EA commented on why they chose to go xbone exclusive with titanfall justifying that they thought it would be the better selling console between the two. techinically they said they based their decision on "where they thought the two would be" (sales wise). and now Phill is saying market share doesnt have anything to do with it? well the company you money hatted says other wise.



Around the Network
DerNebel said:
Azzanation said:
So many of you have no business degrees. Look when your selling a product to someone, market share has nothing to do with it. 25m PS4s vs 13m XB1s means little. Both are recognised systems and some games sell bettern on consoles with less sales. If every PS4 gamer were to buy the same game then yes you have an argument however games sell a few million at best on either system.

Its all to do with money. XB1 still only has half the user base then the PS4 but look at all the exclusives coming out, if market share was the reason then XB1 would have no exclusives or timed exclusives.

The sad part is fanboys believe companies go with other companies because they love them. Money talks. Sunset Overdrive and Titanfall didn't release on Xbox because they love MS, they released because MS paid them. Just like PS exclusives. Sony pays them and that's there focus this gen.

Did you even read the OP? Spencer literally says that marketshare has no influence on the amount of money a platform holder has to pay for a third party exclusive or exclusive DLC. Anybody with a business degree can tell you that that's grade-A bullshit.

Marketshare doesnt influence. Phil is the head of Xbox, he deals with these sort of things all the time, just like the head of PS and Nintendo. Money makes the world go around thats all it is. Who do we listen to? Fans on a gaming site with no experince in these sort of things or a man who has years of experince and degrees in this subject? Maybe Phil is right and maybe he might be uncovering a monster, or maybe he is wrong, but again Money makes the world go round.



bananaking21 said:
seriously dude? i mean EA commented on why they chose to go xbone exclusive with titanfall justifying that they thought it would be the better selling console between the two. techinically they said they based their decision on "where they thought the two would be" (sales wise). and now Phill is saying market share doesnt have anything to do with it? well the company you money hatted says other wise.


EA's deal come with MS accepting EA Access and there good relationship with EA. EA are bascially using Xbox becasue Xbox supports EA, just like RotTR is timed. Help them, help you.



A while back people were saying MS should drop these exclusive marketin deals because it's not worth it... Now they change their approach and people are coming up with all kinds of theories and state them as facts. Maybe there wasn't need for these deals for COD and AC for example, since they have Halo 5 and RotTR releasing. And don't they have marketing rights for Fallout 4 too? Next year things might be different. Let's not overreact to what he is saying.



Azzanation said:
bananaking21 said:
seriously dude? i mean EA commented on why they chose to go xbone exclusive with titanfall justifying that they thought it would be the better selling console between the two. techinically they said they based their decision on "where they thought the two would be" (sales wise). and now Phill is saying market share doesnt have anything to do with it? well the company you money hatted says other wise.


EA's deal come with MS accepting EA Access and there good relationship with EA. EA are bascially using Xbox becasue Xbox supports EA, just like RotTR is timed. Help them, help you.


http://www.gamezone.com/news/titanfall-s-exclusivity-based-on-ea-s-xbox-and-playstation-sales-forecast-not-xbox-one-s-cloud

 

no its not. it was based on sales EA's forcast of the sales of both consoles. 



Azzanation said:
DerNebel said:

Did you even read the OP? Spencer literally says that marketshare has no influence on the amount of money a platform holder has to pay for a third party exclusive or exclusive DLC. Anybody with a business degree can tell you that that's grade-A bullshit.

Marketshare doesnt influence. Phil is the head of Xbox, he deals with these sort of things all the time, just like the head of PS and Nintendo. Money makes the world go around thats all it is. Who do we listen to? Fans on a gaming site with no experince in these sort of things or a man who has years of experince and degrees in this subject? Maybe Phil is right and maybe he might be uncovering a monster, or maybe he is wrong, but again Money makes the world go round.

What are you even talking about? Nobody is trying to argue that those 3rd party deals are being given to Snoy for free (except maybe a couple medium/smaller sized japanese games), but the notion that the installbase difference of the 2 systems has no influence on the price is beyond ridiculous.

And I listen to logic here, no need to listen to forum people for this, instead of a MS represantitive that would surely prefer not saying "Well since we're lagging behind in installbase significantly it is also noticably easier and cheaper for Sony to establish exclusive deals with third party publishers". It looks way better to the uninformed to say that it's all a choice by MS.