> You don't seem to see the BIG picture.
Skool me, Obi Wan.
> Sony doesn't have to sell as much as other companies do to break even.
Err... OK, if you say so, but I'd need data to back that up before I believe it.
> Sony developers aren't paying fees to put a title on it's own platform.
Neither are MS developers in the same scenario. You think Lionhead, Rare, Turn10 pay fees? I'd say all Microsoft-published titles have different deals than non-published or multiplat releases.
Now, if you're saying that NO publishers every pay licensing fees to SONY to put games out on the PS3, I'd need to see some supporting data as that means SONY makes nothing from them. That would be crazy.
Side note: Incidentally, "It's" is a contraction of IT and IS, not possessive, that would be "ITS" without the apostrophe.
> Sony developers aren't paying for using Blu-ray from Sony's OWN BD pressing factories around the world.
Maybe... the publisher pays for that. The money comes from somewhere - those factories don't run themselves - it's coming out of someone's pockets.
> Sony developers don't have to pay a publisher to manage and promote the title.
That's because SONY is the publisher? In which case SONY pays for it.
If SONY's not the publisher,
> These WOULD BE FEES are ALL sources of revenue for EACH game sold.
Correct, that's how the system works. Companies pay R&D and make a console, and the people who make money selling titles for that console kick in a bit of their profit.
And, "as long as SONY is near breaking even..." is another patently ridiculous statement. How long are the company's investors going to be satisfied with 'nearly breaking even'?
Put you in charge and the game really WILL change for SONY.
But, all that said, I still think you're full of it. Sorry, nothing compelling, just reactionary hand-waving. :)
But an opinion is an opinion and I've had a good time chuckling at this thread.
Until next time. I bid you... adieu.
(curtseys and backs away from the keyboard)