If that's the case, these companies should pull their products from Sony. Go public with the reasons (accidental leaks if necessary, come down 'real hard' on the temp cleaner hired to leak them) adn let Sony rot in the public outcry. The law courts aren't the only way to get justice.
Oh I would love to say Bobby K isn't the guy responsible for COD's market position, but honestly, he's the guys steering the ship. He's the guys making the decision to push for annual releases. He did that with Tony Hawk, Guitar Hero, Skylanders, and of course, Call of Duty. That's literally his recipe for success. Make a franchise that's an yearly release. They almost did it when they had the James Bond license, releasing 4 games in 5 years. When they got the license, Kotick announced they were already working on 2 games from 2 teams. The annual release is the reason why COD has the market position it does. The fact that Kotick is so obsessed with only having annual franchises is the reason he pushed so many teams to work on COD games. Even Toys For Bob are a COD support studio now.
Again, my response was to BRiT's post which was suggesting Activision-Blizzard should gibe all their marketing to Microsoft.
I agree, it’s hyperbolic. It’s likely not that forceful. But IMO we are treading a pretty fine line here when you are paying for blocking rights. This is just an extension of timed exclusivity ugliness.
He is not. The big work is still on those who made it happen. We tend to attribute on CEO's the work of others.
Hmm.....interesting. I didnt know that you can purchase DLC on a different platform other than the one you purchased the game on and it is probably more of an issue on F2P games.Sony charges for crossplay support to protect PSN revenue, documents show
Epic lawsuit shows that Sony gets royalties if too many PlayStation players spend money elsewhere.www.pcgamer.com
Unfortunately it’s true.
It begs to ask what companies can do when the biggest platform does this? Say no? It’s 2x the size of Xbox, the majority of the profits will come from PS.
You either pay the fee or you don’t allow cross play.
The way it works is that the developers must submit to Sony all of their revenue across all platforms.
Of course it has to do with where you are buying. The calculation is supposed to make an estimation of how many are playing on PSN vs where the players are actually buying. Cant really say if that calculation is the best way to do it or if it robs the developers nor if playing on PS incures costs for Sony. But if it does incure costs, it kind of makes sense why a platform owner will want compensation for how many people play the game on their platform vs where they are buying.
I think you’re mixing cross platform purchasing with cross play.
In simple terms it says that if a certain amount of players play on PS and the corresponding revenue share is below a certain percentage then Sony should get some royalties.
Firstly, yes but the examples thst Sony have provided I don’t agree with. Sony represents 2x the size of Xbox and PC represents approximately Xbox or more. That means at best PS is usually 50% of a cross platform title. Normal distribution would say that typically PSN should net about 50% of the proportional profits. But if PSN dips to 42% of the profits, but holds 50% of the proportional player base, then money is owed.
I'm not attributing anything to him that he didn't do. He's the guy who only wanted annual franchises. He's the guy who applied that idea to COD, a game made by a single developer every few years to a franchise with multiple developers pumping out annual releases.
In conflicting language. "PSN Revenue Share divided by PS4 Gameplay Share". They then go on to multiply the fractions, as you'd expect.
I agree I don't think there are costs that need recovering. Sony's PSN revenue is through the roof - they aren't struggling due to cross play. That said, after looking at it back and forth, presently I don't thiknk the remuneration here is completely whack. It's comparing the expenditure to the play time. If someone owns two platforms and buys all their content on not-PS but plays all the game on PS, Sony is missing out on that revenue. But the metric Sony are using is that someone has to spend a slightly less amount of time on PS proportional to spending on the platform. If you have PC, XB and PS, and buy 50% of your content on PC, Sony expects you to spend 50% of your gaming time on PC. If you are buying on PC but then playing on PS, you are using the other platform not as a gaming platform but as a shopping workaround. That doesn't seem unfair in a business rules way, but it does kinda suck that consumers aren't allowed to shop around. But then consumers are also tricksy and will circumvent and cheat spending, so there has to be some management of them too. Worst case hypothetical, someone buys a PS5 at cost, Sony makes no profit. They then play a F2P, buying all their content on a crappy laptop that can't play the game through a cheap content portal but playing all their time on PS5 and PSN. That's circumventing Sony's market which the hardware is designed around. If we're going to have that model, perhaps should be sold at profit?
There are no secrets any more!I d say there is no difference for the consumer. It is unfair mostly for the owner of the software used. In the case of Fortnite, Epic. Epic pays for the consumer who purchases on a different platform. It reduces their own revenue.In conflicting language. "PSN Revenue Share divided by PS4 Gameplay Share". They then go on to multiply the fractions, as you'd expect.
I agree I don't think there are costs that need recovering. Sony's PSN revenue is through the roof - they aren't struggling due to cross play. That said, after looking at it back and forth, presently I don't thiknk the remuneration here is completely whack. It's comparing the expenditure to the play time. If someone owns two platforms and buys all their content on not-PS but plays all the game on PS, Sony is missing out on that revenue. But the metric Sony are using is that someone has to spend a slightly less amount of time on PS proportional to spending on the platform. If you have PC, XB and PS, and buy 50% of your content on PC, Sony expects you to spend 50% of your gaming time on PC. If you are buying on PC but then playing on PS, you are using the other platform not as a gaming platform but as a shopping workaround. That doesn't seem unfair in a business rules way, but it does kinda suck that consumers aren't allowed to shop around. But then consumers are also tricksy and will circumvent and cheat spending, so there has to be some management of them too. Worst case hypothetical, someone buys a PS5 at cost, Sony makes no profit. They then play a F2P, buying all their content on a crappy laptop that can't play the game through a cheap content portal but playing all their time on PS5 and PSN. That's circumventing Sony's market which the hardware is designed around. If we're going to have that model, perhaps should be sold at profit?
In short, I can see Sony's point and it doesn't immediately nauseate me where the initial description did. But it's still a bloody massive imposition, the right to audit the company's entire books! Piss off!
PS: Love the fact we're discussing something HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.
Yea I think from that perspective that makes sense. For me, I wasn’t actually thinking about a person owning several consoles buying on one and playing on the other. It doesn’t seem to make sense to me since I would want to play on the console where I was buying stuff.In conflicting language. "PSN Revenue Share divided by PS4 Gameplay Share". They then go on to multiply the fractions, as you'd expect.
I agree I don't think there are costs that need recovering. Sony's PSN revenue is through the roof - they aren't struggling due to cross play. That said, after looking at it back and forth, presently I don't thiknk the remuneration here is completely whack. It's comparing the expenditure to the play time. If someone owns two platforms and buys all their content on not-PS but plays all the game on PS, Sony is missing out on that revenue. But the metric Sony are using is that someone has to spend a slightly less amount of time on PS proportional to spending on the platform. If you have PC, XB and PS, and buy 50% of your content on PC, Sony expects you to spend 50% of your gaming time on PC. If you are buying on PC but then playing on PS, you are using the other platform not as a gaming platform but as a shopping workaround. That doesn't seem unfair in a business rules way, but it does kinda suck that consumers aren't allowed to shop around. But then consumers are also tricksy and will circumvent and cheat spending, so there has to be some management of them too. Worst case hypothetical, someone buys a PS5 at cost, Sony makes no profit. They then play a F2P, buying all their content on a crappy laptop that can't play the game through a cheap content portal but playing all their time on PS5 and PSN. That's circumventing Sony's market which the hardware is designed around. If we're going to have that model, perhaps should be sold at profit?
In short, I can see Sony's point and it doesn't immediately nauseate me where the initial description did. But it's still a bloody massive imposition, the right to audit the company's entire books! Piss off!
PS: Love the fact we're discussing something HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.
metro.co.uk
When presented as billing Epic a small additional percentage, the response is largely 'who cares'. But for other devs, Sony's fees are already high. An additional Sony Tax on sales outside of the Sony ecosystem is tough to bear where it's not really paying for anything from Sony, especailly if all the platform holders followed suit. What's that, you bought a Virtual Haircut on iOS? Please pay MS, and Sony, and Nintendo, and Steam, and Epic, and Google, a cut of all the money you didn't spend on their respective stores...
Silly to look at growth instead of install-base.
www.purexbox.com
www.gamesindustry.biz
If people love their Nintendo and Playstation more it is MS's fault and not Sony's or Nintendo's.
