This would be like you were the highest paid employee with the most seniority and your employer went and hired some other employees who were really green, but then started doing a better job than you over time and so the employer decided to give the newbies raises instead of you or potentially even lay you off.
If you can explain to me which part of this is absolutely disgusting and not something you would do if you were running PlayStation i will sell my PS5.
But isn't the idea behind this whole tactic by Sony to somehow validate them "allowing" crossplay yet "recouping losses" when people purchase microtransactions elsewhere. Who cares if PS4/5 have the biggest playerbase yet more people purchase skins on Xbox, you still have the biggest playerbase and therefore more chance of converting them to other store purchases outside of that game.
Most multiplayer games are no Fortnites or Minecrafts of the world and have rather small playerbases, even on Playstation. The smaller the playerbase, the less eager players are to put up with long matchmaking times etc. which further drives them away from those games, which in turn leads to fewer opportunity for microtransactions on all platforms including Playstation. Sony is putting developers of smaller multiplayer games in a precarious situation, which ultimately hurts Sony's own ecosystem as well.
Pretty standard for corporate presentations to have a set colour scheme and branding on it. Every slide deck I make for my employer has the corporate colours and branding built-in to the template and it's mandated that the template is used.
What you are saying if true, but seems to me that they are okay with cross play as long as they get cut from players playing on their platforms, even if they buy MTX from other platforms. How is that stance anti-consumer and why would that be hurdle for smaller devs is something that I don't understand. They are not asking for overall cut from all MTX.
My understanding is that if said players aren't playing on PlayStation then they Sony doesn't get anything. Is that incorrect understanding?
If it concerns only revenue from linked PS accounts, but completely leaves out people (revenue from people) who never used PS to play the game, then it's less stringent than I'd thought.
This is a genuinely good argument, and not just because it is an issue for smaller devs, but because it might get into issues such as privacy concerns.
I think a lot of people are skipping over this and realistically it's probably the thing that's stopping cross-play/progression more than the financial side (which now the full contract is available many need to revalidate their position on, including myself).
Apple is the scapegoat in all of this imo, their real target seems to always have been Sony and anyone else who is trying to implement a similar type of practice for posterity sake. Apple doesn't even contribute that much from fortnite in the revenue. Suing Sony would cause a bigger loss in cash and not spin as many heads or get as much attention. This one, against Apple of all companies, gets the most attention and highest publicity.
I'm surprised this isn't talked about more as it clearly is a lot of work to do this every month and it might not even be info you would want to share in the first place.
Yep. The amount of market intelligence they're requiring for monthly reports would easily necessitate a team to provide. It wouldn't be surprising for such requirements to turn smaller devs away from cross-play completely.
I haven't been keeping up with the trial, but wouldn't this prove that Apple's terms aren't as crazy as another Epic partner--Sony?
Dude that just happened for PC a few days ago. Yes....theoretically MS or someone might be able to Walmart the industry but just think about how much time and money it took to get xbox in a stable third place.
