Intrinsic said:
That's because the PC platform has so far been an open platform. And being open comes with its own quirks. First, you see multiple stores, then you start seeing "store" exclusives. And before you know what. you start to see content specific to certain stores within games available on both stores. Its just competition, its just business. All these people are in it to make money. Lets put our personal biases (god or bad) towards any company aside and look at this practically. I am going to use Playstation as an example here since I am most familiar with them, but what I am saying is applicable to everyone in some way or the other.
How is that fair? An argument can be made that publishers can push for platform holders to take less money from them, but you will find that platform holders would require certain things from the publisher in turn (again, it's a business) eg.. fine, we will drop what we take from you for every game sold from30% to 5%, as long as you make your game exclusive to our platform. That just how it works, and its a fair system. |
I hope we can get to a point where the other companies don't need to pay royalties to Sony to launch the game on console, but also get no access to the devkits and whatnot. Just because Sony is thriving with themselves fully controling their system (but also enjoy putting their app on ios, android and some games on PC) doesn't mean it is good or worse fair. Sony isn't mandated to sell HW for a loss, they just do because that is what bring more profit to them under current model.
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."