"defenses" lol, the article isn't rethreading defenses, it's explaining what the policy is actually about as a lot of people are misinterpreting it (to quote the article " 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. ")
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/22236383/acastro_210113_1777_gamingstock_0002.jpg)
www.theverge.com
Actually thread-mark worthy if you can pinpoint which. Even if I have to buy it.
Let's not shit on Corsi. He's just doing his job and while he had a lot of responsibility, he didn't set the platform strategy and probably wasn't in a place to make this decision.
Why when these things scummy practices surface Sony is always there?
I don't care if a platform has 90% of the userbase - why does that entitle them to a cut of what customers on another platform are willing to spend on that platform?
Thats him? Dude is forever the MVP then unless some actual slimy shit comes out.
we aren't gamers because we have no life, we are gamers because we choose to have many. gamers unite.
Embarassing post. What makes you think others don't have contracts in place?
Another embarassing post.
Lol, Gio Corsi was part of late PS3 early PS4 Era. He is partly responsible for Yakuza games coming back to west.
Gamers need to rise up against the tyrannical Sony for *checks notes* making sure they make money in cross-platform games.
www.elmundotech.com
Fuck Sony for trying to take money from... *checks note* from another billion dollar company.
Userbase is gameplay hours. The main difference between whales and most users is not played hours (though they play a bit more) but money spent. And whales spent way more than their share of gameplay hours.
Average $/h accounts for userbase. Thats what the "/h" does
Careful, you might be called a corporate shill for calling out these crazy ass posts. Lol
Push Square made a article about it
Crossplay Controversy Shifts to Sony Being Only Company to Enforce Clause
Interesting clause sheds light on Sony's approachwww.pushsquare.com
I think it definitely done in relation to that in terms of, it was likely done for the same reason. The amount of people who can choose between console platforms are fairly slim. But almost everyone has a phone and computer to go buy stuff on the Epic store. Like Apple, Sony knows how easy it would be to undercut them and so they covered their ass.
The info graphic isn't implying anything, it details how Sony wants revenue share to work if you want to offer cross-platform play. And it was the biggest question that people had when all of that hubbub with Fortnite was first going on. Just read the example there, let's say Fortnite is example 2 and 95% of all gameplay time is on PlayStation consoles, but people find it easier to hop into the App Store on their iPhone and buy V-bucks for whatever reason, and they maybe only play Fortnite on that platform on the commute to work. Without this agreement, Apple gets all of the revenue from in-game spending in that situation, even though the majority of gameplay time is on PlayStation. Sony's entire argument when this was all happening was "we have an enormous playerbase, we're not seeing any reason to open that up to other platforms and potentially lose revenue in the process."
Have we seen any games that prevented/removed crossplay because of this?
I think that's how they came to the 85% target instead of 100% of player time. Also, purchases don't necessarily have to happen on competitor platforms. It's about all avenues for vbucks/skins. If someone buys 1000 bucks online, redeem them for a skin to use exclusively on PS4, they effectively circumvented the PlayStation Store for Playstation content.
