noslodecoy said: let's put it this way; Say you mow lawns. You've been cutting lawns in your neighborhood for a few years now. They pay you well, about $20.00 per yard. However, you started mowing lawns in a new neighborhood which pays you $25.00 per yard. Now you could a) continue mowing those lawns in your neighborhood even though you do not make as much, b) ask your clients in your neighborhood to pay you more, or c) invest all your time mowing lawns in the new neighborhood for $25.
Most people would choose B and then move on to C...
that's what Activision is doing.
Activision doesn't want to keep paying Sony more per game in royalties than it does for the 360 and on top of that for a console that doesn't even sell as many games. They will continue to do so, don't get me wrong, but I'm sorry Bobby will keep running his mouth until Sony lowers those royalties they've been charging.
|
Erm this is a flawed theory sir, first of all it wouldn't be you who'd be mowwing the lawns, you'd be at the top! You'll be expanding to a new neighborhood but instead of forcing the older neighborhood to pay an extra $5 you'll be stating in a newsletter that you'd like to raise the price for some reasons and would like the opinions of others as those lawns still generate you profit, the fact that you've discovered a new neighborhood does not mean that you've started to make a loss out of the older one.
Yes you'll make less of a profit theoretically if the traveling costs etc in this is the same but we'll just keep this simple :D
You won't stop mowwing for the neighborhood that only pays you $20 as it generates you profit(Just as it did earlier on)!! With the $25 zone you'll just be expanding.
With Sony they pay some more royalties per game but they still profit enough from them to carry on, they just want more profit by encouraging them to raise the prices of the systems so they can sell more of their software.