-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic lawsuit shows Sony asks publishers for compensation if MTX / playerbase ratio falls below certain amount compared to the cross-platform revenue
- Thread starter eonden
- Start date
From my understanding it's not about spending the same amount, but that spending is relative to to the size of the playerbase and primarily done in that ecosystem. So the only reason you would see it become disproportionate is if the dev is encouraging people to purchase MTX elsewhere, despite a majority of the players being on the Sony platform. Sony wants to keep PS players using PSN, regardless of how much they spend.
This deal basically locks companies into promoting the PS platform over all of the others because if they push DLC onto another platform, let's say like Nintendo costumes for fortnite on switch only) that would then skew the ratio away from Sony and possibly lead to Epic having to pay fees to Sony because they wanted to add Nintendo characters into the game.
This is a smart deal for Sony, but it's slimy as heck and it's them strong arming devs into supporting their platform and incentivizing them to focus on PlayStation or else they pay fees. It'a a deal with the devil in a way.
This is a smart deal for Sony, but it's slimy as heck and it's them strong arming devs into supporting their platform and incentivizing them to focus on PlayStation or else they pay fees. It'a a deal with the devil in a way.
This is something that I contribute to. If I want to buy Destiny Silver, I do so on Xbox, and it's basically the only reason I log into Destiny on Xbox. I do this because I get a 10% discount on the sliver through Game Pass Ultimate, on top of the 10% on Xbox gift cards that's fairly easy to get.
User Banned (3 Days): Platform Warring
as the days go on, im ready for Sony to either bow out or get pushed out the gaming market. every month we learn a bit more on how they dont want gamers to unite.
It not being bad for the company but bad for devs/consumers is exactly why people are saying this is a bad look. Of course the company is gonna try and profit of something as much as they can, what is looked down upon is when that is done at the expense of the other actors involved.
All these contracts get negotiated on. Epic wouldn't have agreed to it if there was that much discrepancy between the platforms and purchasing behavior. That's probably how they landed at 85% of gameplay share. ie. if 60% of gameplay is on PS, then it should be reasonable to expect at least 51% of revenue.
It also allows epic to sell skins directly or through other non-gaming platforms without having to really think about its cross platform business deals. It's kind of a catch all.
Deleted member 44122
Guest
I fear for Street Fithter VI. I really hope they make crossplay a priority again. As a PC player I need this in fighting games.
Not price aligned, you simply cannot use another payment processor than Apple's if you're using an iOS app, because then Apple doesn't get a 30% cut. So they will ban your app if you expose an option to use a third party processor outside the app (Like if Spotify told you to go to spotify.com to buy a subscription), price parity non-withstanding.
That's the point, we don't know. There's a giant fog that covers all of the things we don't know about the business of video games, and one little section of the map showed up that says "Sony wants profit sharing for cross-play titles". We don't know if other platform holders have the same deal with publishers, we just know that Sony does.
Kinda unbelievable the level of poor grammar on display here from top management, people in charge of billion dollars deals.
Also, remember the whole "we have to protect our players!" 😂
This is pretty much my thoughts on it. It's the logical thing to do for a company that knows it has a dominant position in the market.
That's why Sony, MS, Nintendo, etc should never be in a position where they can negotiate like this. For consumers, we need their platforms to be fairly equal/competitive to avoid this type of shit.
I mean all those things lately about Sony should not surprise you that some people may not want to support them for their disgusting practices against gamers sometimes.
Probably not, maybe Destiny, but I'm pretty sure Silver isn't cross-platform, so it'd be unaffected.
They need to provide a audit report based on the bullet point in the OP
These threads always fascinate me when you see the shitty behavior by your favorite corporation and then trying to justify it.
But what if the reason for the revenue disparity across platforms is Sony's fault?
Many people on Era don't store card details on PSN after the hack, in the case where a large enough proportion of consumers choose to buy on another platform the dev would get punished, that doesn't seem fair.
That isn't necessarily true at all. Epic could have just determined that enabling cross-play with PlayStation would be a net positive, even with the revenue restriction. I also don't think we know if those are the final terms that were agreed to. But it still is an unfair practice by a platform, and it might not make sense for all games to go along with those terms. They are 100% making developers pay for cross-play, having to makeup whatever revenue PlayStation players aren't spending. Overall, it just disincentives cross-play being supported.
Yeah, and thats literally what the slide in the OP states but people dont wanna read it
Does anyone ITT want to suggest a reason why cross play benefits the playstation business? All Epic offered were unrealated sweetners, nothing that actually says cross play itself would be a good deal for Sony.I find this part the most angering:
Corporations act to protect their own financial interests.The amount of backroom politics and financial tit-for-tat is huge. They don't do this stuff to annoy their customers, they do it because there are huge amounts of money on the line. You can tell that most of this forum have never worked in a 'professional' job.
Indeed, but they don't expose a third party processor within the app, which is what Fortnite did.
Oh yeah, I agree. It's definitely bad for the developers, but at the same time unfortunately I can see every corp doing this as a way to "protect" their part of the revenue because of the userbase.
Kinda wish it didn't happen and it was just.. simpler. But I guess when money is involved it is never simple (or in good faith).
Pretty sure the big guys get a pass, just like Steam's cut goes down the more you sell. We are just not privy to the contract details.
Yep, because epic wanted to be able to charge less on their own platform, vs going to google route, honestly I dont even know why they didnt just try to make a deal like what this sony piece is here is because based on the court docs iOS dwarfs their stuff.
unless apple didnt even want to make that kind of deal which Im betting is why This escalated like this.
lmao. I hate hate hate people are equating this to some struggle.
I think that's the point, if you want players to cross-play on PSN, it's not a great look to throw it in their face that "hey, here's aswesome skins you are missing out on because of the platform you are on". In fact Fortnite has Kratos skins across all platforms, not just on PSN. It's more to prevent publishers/devs from favoring any platforms over another. I am sure we would see complaints to Sony that "why are the Link costumes only available on Switch, why arent' you making Epic make them available everywhere".
That's probably why there is a 15% flexibility and an aggregate view. It smooths things like this out over time. I imagine the percentage of people worried about this issue is tiny compared to the average gamer out there. Breaches are a matter of when not if with most major platforms anyway. It sucks, but it's today's reality.
Yeah I will go support other non multi billion dollar companies who surely don't have business dealing or contracts.
I'd be interested in what sort of other games are under this agreement. I know people are concerned about smaller devs but looking at what Sony is trying to do here, it really only makes sense to push it for F2P games that are fueled by MTX with a cross-save component and don't require PS+. So this happens to ensure the companies are mutually benefiting (Sony brings the biggest playerbase, Epic brings the game where people want to spend a ton on MTX) and to keep it a "fair deal".
How many of these F2P MTX are really being made by small indie devs? This isn't really to defend Sony but just to say, I'd be surprised if they are applying it to every single game across the board vs. games like Fortnite being a unique beast because of how popular it is.
How many of these F2P MTX are really being made by small indie devs? This isn't really to defend Sony but just to say, I'd be surprised if they are applying it to every single game across the board vs. games like Fortnite being a unique beast because of how popular it is.
Staff post / discussion guidelines
Official Staff Communication
This thread has been filled with misinformation, reactionary drive-bys, platform wars, and accusations of shilling. This is not acceptable behavior and will be moderated. Please take the time to understand the content before replying and respond to other posters in a respectful manner.
the top selling stuff in gaming on amazon for example are the store gift cards people are just fine using those.
It's as if the "didn't read OP" stereotype and the "brb using imagination since no pics" meme converged...
Like it's all right there but because the thread title is wrong, everyone is in a tizzy just because.
It's a multi-million dollar deal. Of course it's analyzed and negotiated on.
Also, cross-play and cross-purchase are two entirely different things. you can have one without the others and vice versa. This is about cross-purchase and not cross-play. Very few games have cross-purchase.
I don't see how it helps Sony to be the one platform not included in cross-platform play. I would specifically avoid that version if I owned multiple platforms.
This was very much necessary. The bar has really fallen in the last few weeks for OPs. Lots of alarmism and misinformation.
OP
OP
Except it isnt.
"Oh your whales are not on Sony but your base is? gotta pay up".
This is exactly the reason why Sony has this contract. You pay on Xbox, but play on Sony's infrastructure. Not saying you shouldn't do this...but this is why Sony does what they do.
Except it is. This isn't related to cross-play. It's about cross platform purchases. Most games only have cross-play. Not cross purchases.