Let me grab my violin. You got me, you figured out my ultimate goal. Im trying to hype microsoft up enough that they become so beloved that sony goes out of business and every playstation game gets cancelled.
I mean you just knew after Sony having a bunch of goods news and his last pro-Xbox article falling apart that he was going to pop up very quickly again. It's like fucking clockwork with these people. Not even just the pro-Xbox journos either.Tom Warrior again
People are defending common sense. Appreciating cross-play and common sense are not mutually exclusive.
So you think the consumer can buy the food in another restaurant and come to eat in your restaurant's table without pay anything to your restaurant?
There are, we even have a nice big stonk thread.
Which is fair and as such people should stop asking for the feature since it would be like asking a big corp to give them some free money.
Your not looking at it from the same eyes as this epic case is about
It's a foreign concept to many on this board.
So where the MTX will be sold? Everybody will get a share?
But you are okay with this right?
Agreed. And Microsoft did the same thing when they had the advantage. But granted it [being in favor of cross play] is an easier position to take when you are not leading. Basically it comes down to business.
Fixed. They know, believe me, they know.
No, according to me Sony should do everything they can to improve the gaming experience for their customers. It’s not about being charitable. What an awful way of viewing things.
He basically create that new article because his old one backslashed him.
Perfection.
www.pushsquare.com
How is it for their own consumer base?Wow lmao
‘Epic goes out of its way to make Sony look like heroes’
and
‘not a single one can explain how cross-console play improves the PlayStation business’
are the two highlights for methe ‘for the payers’ meme based on Sony’s apparent attitude to their own consumer base seem pretty accurate.
But Sony shouldn't be stopping EA from doing what they want based off some stupid excuses like protecting kids/users. This is what happened.
That is at least a step to be fair business.Crossplay Controversy Shifts to Sony Being Only Company to Enforce Clause
Interesting clause sheds light on Sony's approach
So, what’s going on here? Well, the document refers to something called 'Cross-Platform Revenue Share', and it’s basically a clause that ensures Sony is paid royalties by developers if there’s a disproportionate ratio between PlayStation playtime and overall game revenue in a crossplay release. You’re still confused, aren’t you?
So, let’s imagine Fortnite flogs $1,000,000 worth of V-Bucks in a month, but only $50,000 was spent through the PS Store. That’s just 5 per cent of the game’s overall revenue being purchased through PlayStation, right? Now let’s pretend that, in this scenario, 75 per cent of Fortnite’s overall playtime was on PS5 and PS4. In that case, the publisher would be required to pay Sony royalties based on the total revenue earned and PlayStation’s overall gameplay share.
Why, you may be asking, is Sony doing this? Well, because if 75 per cent of Fortnite’s playtime is being played through PSN but only 5 per cent of its revenue is being earned on Sony’s storefront, then the clause exists to protect the platform holder, as it’s providing the infrastructure and player base while others, in this example, would be profiting from it.
But, let’s say that Fortnite is generating $1,000,000 of revenue a month, and $900,000 is being spent on the PS Store. That’s 90 per cent of the game’s overall revenue. So, what if 95 per cent of the game’s playtime is being logged on PlayStation? Well, in this scenario, developers wouldn’t have to pay royalties because it falls within the boundaries of what Sony considers to be fair.
It’s an interesting clause, but it makes sense from PlayStation’s perspective: if it’s providing the majority of the playerbase, then it stands to reason that it would expect a roughly comparative share of the revenue. It’s worth noting that, for the vast majority of people, they’re most likely to purchase microtransactions on the system they play on, so we’d be shocked if there was ever a large enough difference between revenue share and gameplay time to enforce royalties on a developer.
The way this has been framed on social media has been misleading, with many believing that Sony is charging developers to implement crossplay in the first place. Based on the slide, this is not the case. It’s also worth stressing that these documents are dated 2019, and the company is yet to comment whether this clause still exists or not.
This isn't really the same scenario, because one is first party (single player) games anticipated to be exclusive titles vs. third party multiplayer games. Multiplayer games live and die by the playerbase.
Legally of course they can but consumers don't have to accept it. Legally they could have shut down the ps3/vita store but consumers didn't have to just accept it.
It is really not the same case.
What if walmart was doing a deal on vbucks so the consumer was getting additional value out of that retailer, why should Sony get paid?Crossplay Controversy Shifts to Sony Being Only Company to Enforce Clause
Interesting clause sheds light on Sony's approach
So, what’s going on here? Well, the document refers to something called 'Cross-Platform Revenue Share', and it’s basically a clause that ensures Sony is paid royalties by developers if there’s a disproportionate ratio between PlayStation playtime and overall game revenue in a crossplay release. You’re still confused, aren’t you?
So, let’s imagine Fortnite flogs $1,000,000 worth of V-Bucks in a month, but only $50,000 was spent through the PS Store. That’s just 5 per cent of the game’s overall revenue being purchased through PlayStation, right? Now let’s pretend that, in this scenario, 75 per cent of Fortnite’s overall playtime was on PS5 and PS4. In that case, the publisher would be required to pay Sony royalties based on the total revenue earned and PlayStation’s overall gameplay share.
Why, you may be asking, is Sony doing this? Well, because if 75 per cent of Fortnite’s playtime is being played through PSN but only 5 per cent of its revenue is being earned on Sony’s storefront, then the clause exists to protect the platform holder, as it’s providing the infrastructure and player base while others, in this example, would be profiting from it.
But, let’s say that Fortnite is generating $1,000,000 of revenue a month, and $900,000 is being spent on the PS Store. That’s 90 per cent of the game’s overall revenue. So, what if 95 per cent of the game’s playtime is being logged on PlayStation? Well, in this scenario, developers wouldn’t have to pay royalties because it falls within the boundaries of what Sony considers to be fair.
It’s an interesting clause, but it makes sense from PlayStation’s perspective: if it’s providing the majority of the playerbase, then it stands to reason that it would expect a roughly comparative share of the revenue. It’s worth noting that, for the vast majority of people, they’re most likely to purchase microtransactions on the system they play on, so we’d be shocked if there was ever a large enough difference between revenue share and gameplay time to enforce royalties on a developer.
I agree that Sony should use that to get what they deserve.
The vbucks is redeem on Sony servers and so it have a share for both Sony and retail in a ideal non-crossplay scenario.
What's difficult to understand about wanting to play with people in a multiplayer game no matter the platform? Especially input-based restricted crossplay (to prevent those not wanting to deal with KB/M players on Xbox or PC).
PlayStation has the biggest userbase. So on most multiplatform games, like Fortnite, the majority of the userbase play on PlayStation.
In terms of business for games like Fortnite, crossplay hurts PS and benefits MS and Nintendo. This is why MS and Nintendo accepted faster and Sony only accepted if the related loss of revenue got compensated.
Also sth else interesting for those that believed Sony’s/epic lies on unreal engine 5 and other stuff.
Just before others comment, you explained why it fucks Sony, not the consumer
Doesn’t steam have more active users then both PSN and XBL yet they don’t ban cross platform play.
Yeap... believes that won't affect consumers lol
