This seems ridiculous. Sony sells consoles at a loss and makes it money on game sales etc. If this succeeds that will kill that business model and who benefits from that?
https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/4/22609150/sony-playstation-...
Consoles are often sold at a loss initially but quickly become profitable as hardware costs fall.
The razor-and-blades model isn't as ubiquitous as you might believe.
Sure, considering the platform-game paradigm different products sources cross subsidize one another a different stages of their life cycles. This is just how firms work, and is often mostly a matter of accounting.
For years this model has worked great in physical media sales, I don't have a problem with it in online media.
If we want companies like Sony to produce consoles they need a way to make them profitable. It's an extremely risky investment with no guarantee of success.
Lastly if 30 percent is "unfair" developers would not use the platform. But they do. Same for consumers. If all parties in this didn't derive value they wouldn't trade with each other.
My PS3 was my last console for this reason. Developers pay the publishing charge and make up the loss with micro-transactions or shallow GOTY editions. In cases where they don't add tedious amounts of "grind" mechanics to extend gameplay time, they'll just make them multiplayer-centric.
The whole thing has become a racket.
The older I get and the less time I have to tinker with PC, the more I appreciate consoles
I inherited an Atari and small NES game collection from my grandparents. They’re games about ~35-45 years old. When my grandparents bought those games, and when my mother was playing them, handing them on to the next generation certainly wasn’t a consideration - but that day came.
Now imagine yourself 35 years from now. That Steam game that was delisted 25 years ago, barely runs on Windows whatever-it-is, and can’t be transferred, isn’t going to be a very viable option.
And that’s just the beginning. I get a mountain of joy from loaning titles to friends and family. Often, more than even playing the game itself. Not happening with Steam.
You might say, “just go pirate.” To which I say, you seriously expect a free and open internet in 35 years at this rate?
Plus while steam big picture mode is possible, it's kind of a pain compared to the simplicity of hooking up a console right to your big screen TV.
If you've already got a basic laptop you use for everything else, and are just looking for a normal gaming experience (not modding or cheating or maxing out graphics), why would you buy a PC instead? It's all downsides.
(If you don't have a laptop and already do all your computing on a PC desktop then using that for gaming makes more sense. But even then, your desktop is often in your home office while you want to do your gaming on your big-screen TV -- so you still get a console.)
For me, sure, Steam prices are great; but the fact that it can be taken away from me for any reason and I can never sell/give any item means I’m basically buying… what, exactly? It feels like buying an IOU for a game.
As for piracy, well, I don’t think I need say more.
On the other hand, for people who can't afford a ton of games but want to play a ton of games, Xbox Game Pass has been huge.
I actually wonder if Game Pass has had any effect in reducing piracy the way Spotify had a gigantic effect on music piracy. Or if Game Pass and pirates are distinct groups without much overlap.
Why would I buy a separate piece of hardware taking up more space in my home and life? More money down the drain.
Sure, it's nice that it "just works", but so does `pacman -Sy xonotic`.
But they are generally referring to the graphics-intensive games that have been available on consoles for the past ten years. That's what "normal gaming" is. CoD, GTA, Halo. Mainstream multiplayer stuff and similar single-player.
Not one of which runs on an average laptop.
People buy consoles to run console-type games.
In the conversation around PCs vs consoles, I think you know nobody's talking about Pac-Man here.
Users, just plug and play, without caring about drivers, and thousand of other stuff a regular OS is full with.
You’ve got to contend with the mess that is Windows (Linux is improving but is even more tinkery) and its idiosyncrasies, keeping drivers up to date in some cases and rolling them back in others depending on what the driver update improves/breaks. You’ve got to know what makes a gaming PC good so you don’t get ripped off with some giant overpriced ball of aggressively angled plastic and LEDs with terrible airflow. You’ve gotta know to wipe and reinstall clean Windows or at least how to remove bloatware. And if you really want to get the most out of the experience, you need to know how to build a PC and how to set up RAM speeds in BIOS and all that. And even after all that, there’s a decent chance you’ll come home from work hoping to fire up your favorite game only to find that some combination of factors has broken it, leaving you SOL until the game gets another update or you dive under the hood to fix it yourself.
Meanwhile with e.g. a PS5 you just buy it, put it on your TV stand, plug it in, and boot it up. Boom, it’s running your games optimally, no knowledge or tinkering required. It doesn’t randomly break, it reliably just works.
I have a custom gaming tower and it’s nice to have but damn if it isn’t a pain in the rear from time to time. I can absolutely see the appeal in something more plug and play even at the cost of some performance.
I can't play games as much as I used to (being a parent leaves little free time). But when I did I owned pcs and consoles. I don't think I'm biased on the issue. I enjoy both. But none of my friends played pc games, they weren't into tinkering etc.
That might be bad for Sony share holders (to a degree) but it's excellent in general.
Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo have done in my opinion a great job in the gaming sphere by producing pretty good quality consoles at affordable prices. Certainly there is room for improvement, but this continued assault seeking to "commoditize" everything from iOS to Playstation just ensures that it turns to shit.
Commoditization isn't a moral good, neither is open-source.
So you are saying that they are engaging in anti-competitive practices. Also at $500, it's unlikely a loss.
The filed case is in the UK. So there is that. It applies to the EU as well.
Everyone. They shouldn't be allowed to price dump computer components so they can charge fat margins by enforcing DRM. They shouldn't even be allowed to own the platform at all. The EU should hit these video game companies with the same laws they're going to hit Google and Apple with. Gotta put an end to their little digital fiefdoms.
And in any case, console manufacturers aren't "owed" a razor-and-blades business model.
How does Sony/Nintendo/Sega make money back in the day? Royalty fees. Every copy of a game sold on their platform, they get 10-20%. If you refuse then you don’t publish at all - all consoles have lockout mechanisms; NES/SNES has a lockout chip you can only get from Nintendo, modern consoles require all executables to be digitally signed or they won’t run and guess who has the keys, …
Apple would be hurt by allowing alt stores though since they don’t charge royalties. But if forced to open up iOS to alt stores, I think they will start charging royalties like consoles do.
That's not really their business model. Sony has never sold a console that, over the life of the product, has lost money on hardware. Microsoft may have with the XBox and their red ring problem, but that's not really relevant to this discussion.
Who benefits? Consumers mostly. Sony likes that model because it is more profitable for them. It also raises a barrier to competitors. If everybody else sells hardware at a loss, it makes it more difficult to launch a new console.
No business model has a Constitutional right to exist, period.