Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony World Wide Studio Boss Hermen Hulst Q&A - Confirms Horizon Zero Dawn Coming To PC This Summer

Azzanation said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

But you won't call it out when Phil does it?

It is about console sales for Xbox. Console sales determines which company makes the most money in the long run. Phil wants to claim otherwise, but the math disagrees with him. He's just a PR spin machine. If XB1 had actually managed to beat PS4 in console sales, he'd be singing an entirely different tune.

Ill call Phil out when something he says doesnt make sense.

The point is what iv been saying is correct. Steam, Apple and Android all showcase you dont need consoles to make a fortune in gaming. Am i wrong in saying that?

The point is i was proven correct by the actual CEO of Xbox. 

Phil clearly shifted the goal post when Xbox started losing.

You aren't just claiming that you don't need a console to make a fortune in gaming. You are claiming that getting rid of exclusives, and selling your games on all platforms will make more money in the long run, than using exclusives to push console sales.

And we already had that argument. I showed that using exclusives to move more consoles makes way more money in the long run due to console royalty fees paid by 3rd party publishers, as well as PS+/XBL fees.



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Around the Network
src said:
> Claims Xbox comes close to PS in first party GOTY
> PS destroys Xbox by hundreds of awards
> Then claims that only the awards he picks count
> PS still destroys Xbox over 20+ years.

Poor guy can't even comprehend how behind Xbox is lol

Funny Because no where in my posts am i denying it. I just love how we went from comparing UC4 v OW to PS has more GOTY than Xbox. 

What next, you want to compare controller sales in this debate too?

Keep moving them, you seem very good at it.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Phil clearly shifted the goal post when Xbox started losing.

You aren't just claiming that you don't need a console to make a fortune in gaming. You are claiming that getting rid of exclusives, and selling your games on all platforms will make more money in the long run, than using exclusives to push console sales.

And we already had that argument. I showed that using exclusives to move more consoles makes way more money in the long run due to console royalty fees paid by 3rd party publishers, as well as PS+/XBL fees.

Phil shifted the goal posts because the entire Xbox brand decided to change thier entire gaming strategy even before the X1 launched. Maybe you have been under a rock.

Also companies make more money via digital than physical because digital media removes the middle man. There is a major reason why Xbox went the PC route and no different to why Sony is testing the waters as well. Horizon is confirmed for PC and not just on PSNow, its coming to Steam. Why would they do that if exclusives are so important as you make them out to be? Because its money.

Hardware costs billions in RnD, the less a company produces the less they lose as consoles are sold at a lost for many years before they make it back. Digital media there is no loss. Its all gain and something MS has realised long ago. Iv been saying it for years and companies are doing exactly that.

If exclusives mean that much than why would MS put there games on PC and Switch? Why is Minecraft still a thing on PS? Serious question.



Azzanation said:
src said:
> Claims Xbox comes close to PS in first party GOTY
> PS destroys Xbox by hundreds of awards
> Then claims that only the awards he picks count
> PS still destroys Xbox over 20+ years.

Poor guy can't even comprehend how behind Xbox is lol

Funny Because no where in my posts am i denying it. I just love how we went from comparing UC4 v OW to PS has more GOTY than Xbox. 

What next, you want to compare controller sales in this debate too?

Keep moving them, you seem very good at it.

Cerebralbore101 said:

Phil clearly shifted the goal post when Xbox started losing.

You aren't just claiming that you don't need a console to make a fortune in gaming. You are claiming that getting rid of exclusives, and selling your games on all platforms will make more money in the long run, than using exclusives to push console sales.

And we already had that argument. I showed that using exclusives to move more consoles makes way more money in the long run due to console royalty fees paid by 3rd party publishers, as well as PS+/XBL fees.

Phil shifted the goal posts because the entire Xbox brand decided to change thier entire gaming strategy even before the X1 launched. Maybe you have been under a rock.

Also companies make more money via digital than physical because digital media removes the middle man. There is a major reason why Xbox went the PC route and no different to why Sony is testing the waters as well. Horizon is confirmed for PC and not just on PSNow, its coming to Steam. Why would they do that if exclusives are so important as you make them out to be? Because its money.

Hardware costs billions in RnD, the less a company produces the less they lose as consoles are sold at a lost for many years before they make it back. Digital media there is no loss. Its all gain and something MS has realised long ago. Iv been saying it for years and companies are doing exactly that.

If exclusives mean that much than why would MS put there games on PC and Switch? Why is Minecraft still a thing on PS? Serious question.

You never ceases to amaze. Yes R&D cost money, and that would be more likely a fixed cost independent of how many units you sell, so actualy the more you sell the better on this particular costs not the opposite.

And MS was talking about how much HW they sold, how X1 was the fastest selling xbox ever until they stopped talking about sales since 10M soon to be shipped, besides that ludicrous it doesn't matter how much you sell the whole year but during holidays. No MS didn't change the strategy before X1, they stopped talking about it and changed how to spin their PR mid gen.



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 said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Phil clearly shifted the goal post when Xbox started losing.

You aren't just claiming that you don't need a console to make a fortune in gaming. You are claiming that getting rid of exclusives, and selling your games on all platforms will make more money in the long run, than using exclusives to push console sales.

And we already had that argument. I showed that using exclusives to move more consoles makes way more money in the long run due to console royalty fees paid by 3rd party publishers, as well as PS+/XBL fees.

Phil shifted the goal posts because the entire Xbox brand decided to change thier entire gaming strategy even before the X1 launched. Maybe you have been under a rock.

Also companies make more money via digital than physical because digital media removes the middle man. There is a major reason why Xbox went the PC route and no different to why Sony is testing the waters as well. Horizon is confirmed for PC and not just on PSNow, its coming to Steam. Why would they do that if exclusives are so important as you make them out to be? Because its money.

Hardware costs billions in RnD, the less a company produces the less they lose as consoles are sold at a lost for many years before they make it back. Digital media there is no loss. Its all gain and something MS has realised long ago. Iv been saying it for years and companies are doing exactly that.

If exclusives mean that much than why would MS put there games on PC and Switch? Why is Minecraft still a thing on PS? Serious question.

Xbox changed their entire gaming strategy prior to XB1 launch? Source? And even if that were proven, that in no way helps, because the PS4 beatdown was clearly coming. Which means that MS saw they were going to lose gen 8 before gen 8 even got started, and decided to make up excuses six months before launch. But you still need to prove that they "changed their strategy" prior to XB1 launch. 

Consoles sell digital as well. So Xbox's shift to PC is meaningless in regards to your point. 


Why would they do that if exclusives are so important as you make them out to be? If exclusives mean that much than why would MS put there games on PC and Switch? Why is Minecraft still a thing on PS? Serious question.

The same reason CEOs do anything that boosts short term profits, while dooming the business in the long term. They only care about getting the stock price up for the next three months, not about the company existing for the next 20 years. CEOs are under immense pressure to provide unsustainable profits. This often leads them to selling the apple trees in the present, and not worrying about how the apple farm will grow more apples a year from now. 

Hardware costs billions in RnD, the less a company produces the less they lose as consoles are sold at a lost for many years before they make it back. Digital media there is no loss. Its all gain and something MS has realised long ago. Iv been saying it for years and companies are doing exactly that.

RnD costs are the same whether you sell 200 million consoles or one million consoles. It's better to split the RND costs among 100 million consoles sold, than 50 million consoles sold. Selling your exclusives Digitally on PC is not all gain and no loss. You have to pay publishing fees to Steam/Epic/GoG, instead of pocketing the entire $60 for yourself. PC Gamers are much more likely to wait for a sale instead of paying the full $60 on release day. Also you lower your total number of consoles sold, which lowers the console royalty fees you get from every third party game. We've been over this. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true.