I can assure you nothing would change from the current ecosystem or future plans if Sony weren't getting that unfair fee.
It's essentially nothing compared to what they make from everything else.
-
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.
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
I can assure you nothing would change from the current ecosystem or future plans if Sony weren't getting that unfair fee.
It's essentially nothing compared to what they make from everything else.
This not only about the fee to think that is not looking at the whole picture .
This is about everything else that comes from opening there user base with getting nothing in return .
If you are running Sony this change loads of aspect in term of how people buy ,spend on console be it money or even marketing wise .
There's a fundamental difference between the usual, reported activities of Sony, which are fair game and nothing you can really complain about, and this specific fee that is the direct result of them abusing their leadership position and penalizing developers/publishers by holding them responsible for the spending behaviour of their audience.
Sony would be just as fine without it.
I don't even disagree? But to entertain this, I know MS didn't care, but in the 360 era, the 2011 PSN hack happened between April 17th and April 19th, the article everyone likes to bring up where MS rejected the idea of cross console play was in June 2011. In all honestly? Completely understandable to not want to get involved with Sony at that current point in time. After that happened, not even I put my credit card on PlayStation systems anymore because that was a huge unprecedented breach of security where they failed to notify people as they should have and broke a ton of trust with consumers. PSN was offline for 23 days. And they were also not interested yet in the XBO era either, the Pure Chess devs said so about MS and Sony when he was looking to crossplay between consoles. In the interview, the only one that was okay with cross console play was Nintendo, and he spoke highly that they were making swift changes behind the scenes to their policy regarding stuff like that in 2013. Ms and Sony didn't allow it, so Pure Chess only had crossplay between Wii U, 3DS, and iOS in the end.
Did you know DQX has crossplay? It's an MMO so of course it would. It also came out before 2013. Game was first released on the Wii, got ports to PC, iOS and Wii U in 2013, 3DS in 2014, then in 2015 for the PS4. You need a separate subscription to play the PlayStation version, while you just need 1 to play on any other device. Before everything left version 1 leaving the older systems behind, they could all communicate with each other and the Wii was the market leader.
Not to say Nintendo's a saint either. They've been stupid the past about online and not wanting it even though they made expansion slots on the Gamecube. They were also known for strong arming in No company is a saint.
Of course this also leaves out the Dreamcast. Sega was really ahead of the curve regarding online even before Sony. Some Dreamcast games had online events, crossplay, and even DLC for some titles.
I've been following a lot of crossplay stuff since these discussions spiked up in like 2018 because Sony wanted to "protect the children", I've made long form posts back on the older threads and why I think a lot of the opposing arguments against crossplay are stupid, and in some cases even steeped in fanboyism. Or why constantly bringing up the past with whataboutisms about the competition and what they did then while most here, including myself, were likely not even aware then or cared at all much then. I've done lots of research just to stamp out plenty of those whataboutisms. Since then things have been getting more and more open, closed systems are less closed now with crossplay becoming more and more normalized which is also aided by the fact that there are more online games of all different types then there ever was in the past. I still hold the stances I did then for the current restrictions, that only Sony does mind you, but is being seen as smart by some in here. WE. ALL. GET. IT. None of us are fucking stupid. The people arguing against the restrictions in this thread, like myself, see these restrictions as shortsighted and not good for the risks involved, especially for smaller developers and publishers that would want to implement cross progression. Cross progression is the future for a number of types of cross play titles, especially games as a service and MMOs, but the developer or publisher could be penalized by Sony if the play ratio and buy ratio of PlayStation users look off to them in the form of revenue share is absurd. It reads to me like a strong arming tactic. Even if we were to learn the clause just catches some edge cases, it can still present itself as a strong arming tactic.
This isn't even getting into one threadmark in this thread that doesn't get brought up enough either when it was brought up in the case. That Sony may be getting additional payments if V-bucks are spent on PlayStation.
Last edited:
Of course pubs have some responsible for the spending behaviour of their audience .
Having MTX cheaper else where would be a direct cause of it for eg .
That not counting the whole buy the system your friend has aspect now change or making it very easy to leave the eco system compare to before.
Or it now possible that every other 3rd party with big IP can do this can cut them out while still using there user base .
Also the object most business is not to be just find but make as much money as possible .
Sometimes it helps certain consumers other times it don't .
Last edited:
There are clauses preventing that. This isn't relevant to the topic.
A publisher or developer shouldn't be hold responsible of where his audience decides to spend their money, if the prices he offers are the same everywhere. This is an unfair clause.
Where is that clause cause i read stuff but not see it and would also be stupid for epic to agree to it .
Since pricing is a big thing to give up control over when have your own app, site etc etc .
it's clause 3. Epics agrees to give best available wholesale price to Sony, and for markets where SRP is maintained by Epic if a competitor is offering a cheaper price Sony can ask for matching compensation. But this is excluding promotions and would happen only if the price is going down definitively.
Sony charging more for the same service than Microsoft is not anti-competitive. It only works so long as that increased cost is worth it to whomever paying. If Toyota was the only one that charged for oil changes and everyone else did it for free, that is not monopolistic. Everyone else is simply offering an incentive Toyota doesn't.
They're not "charging more", they are asking for compensation if their customers decide to spend money outside of their ecosystem.
So they agree to certain aspect in pricing which make sense considering Sony using there user base as leverage .
Which ties back into my point of Sony has nothing to gain by opening there Eco system for free and this was part of the reason they did it .
You're not going to get that. Half the posts in this thread are people looking to make inflammatory, drive-by accusations about anyone who isn't outraged by this instead of trying to engage in meaningful discussion. And it's no surprise looking at some of the users who are doing so. There are people in here who disagree that this makes sense and have expressed that without turning this whole thing into console wars.
They don't intent to deter cross play, but enforce policies that do that, and those suck for all consumers and developers.
What makes it funnier are the same people arguing in bad faith with the staff communication right there lol.
User Warned: Hostility
Era does have such reputation if you actually look outside of it.
And you're replying to someone who specifically wants to see Sony's bottom line reach max potential through this clause.
Bro, I've seen you get banned for console warring and drive by posting at least several times. Sit down.
Sorry if it's impossible to prove to someone such as yourself with clearly no knowledge of business or sales acumen but always comes into these kinds of thread with bad faith arguments and whataboutisms. You always appear in threads like this and do this. I've been in enough threads like this to have seen you enough times to actually have seen you banned for your bad faith arguments.
They're not even a drive-by. Delusibeta has made a lot of posts in here.
And you're replying to someone who specifically wants to see Sony's bottom line reach max potential through this clause.
Bro, I've seen you get banned for console warring and drive by posting at least several times. Sit down.
Sorry if it's impossible to prove to someone such as yourself with clearly no knowledge of business or sales acumen but always comes into these kinds of thread with bad faith arguments and whataboutisms. You always appear in threads like this and do this. I've been in enough threads like this to have seen you enough times to actually have seen you banned for your bad faith arguments.
Last edited:
The people who are disassociating time-spent in a game with revenue earned.
Are you arguing that a player could spend 50 hours playing a game on platform A and 0 hours playing on platform B but spend $50 on platform B to cover his playtime on platform A?
Eg.
Platform A: 100% time in game; 0% money.
Platform B: 0% time in game; 100% money.
Or should there be any guarantee of revenue for Platform A?
Are you arguing that a player could spend 50 hours playing a game on platform A and 0 hours playing on platform B but spend $50 on platform B to cover his playtime on platform A?
Eg.
Platform A: 100% time in game; 0% money.
Platform B: 0% time in game; 100% money.
Or should there be any guarantee of revenue for Platform A?
The case has already established that Epic themselves has triggered this clause with Sony. We know they've never offered any incentive to buy Vbucks on any other platform or done a runaround on Sony's store.
EDIT: actually, imagine the scenario where MS takes a smaller cut, as they floated the idea for. Even THAT would probably cause this to trigger, which is absurd, since the publisher cut would not be part of the revenue. Am I missing something here?
Of course they won't since that would be part of what ever deal they made.
I think Apple even said look how they made a deal with Sony instead of suing them lol .
I'm pointing that out because it shows that this 'offer from sony' is not designed in a way that you won't naturally trigger the clause just by doing business as usual.
Yikes. If you have a problem with my post, you are free to report me and let mods handle the rest. This has to be the most weirdly antagonistic post ever directed at me on this site. You need to calm down.
Sony has a very linear way of looking at things because they view it all under the old model where is all about numbers. Crossplay opens up more opportunities where say your friend plays on PC or Xbox and you two want to play together, the more you play the more possibilities of spending money together on extra items instead of trying to hold your user base hostage.
Sony is also guilty of closing servers down on games, the more platforms supporting multiplayer the more likelihood the games will last longer online. It shouldn't just be about the bottom line all the time, especially if you are in a prosperous position and can afford to benefit the consumer. Goodwill can go a long ways as well. You don't have a motto that says 4 the players if you truly don't believe it yourself. Look at how much Sony rode off on this is how you play used games for example. Epic threw it right back at Sony with this is how easy it is to do cross play, "Hey Tim turn the switch on."
Last edited:
I have no idea how people have such a difficult time grasping this.
It not linear , even if it all about numbers for Sony it about numbers into there eco system not just numbers .
Lets look at this under the old model .
Sony had there close Eco systems and ask EPIC what they gain cause under the old one they have this .
1. All the MTX money going to them since you have to buy under PS Store .
2. Fortnite is the biggest game in the world and they have the largest user base , no cross play means buying a PS4 to play with your friends .
Which bring more people and money into there eco system .
3. Even if you allow cross play with no cross progression it make it harder to leave there Eco system because that is where you spend all your money.
Now that is what Sony losing by open up there eco system , they also have to make sure that other companies don't take advantage of them if they do .
Fornite getting million people more don't mean anything to sony if it not in there eco system or they can't get money from it.
So answer me this what does Sony gain by opening there eco system for free with out any deals or clauses .
35 pages in, it is not about crossplay!!!
It is about cross progression, the only servers Sony shutdowns are their own were you can only play on their console, so that doesnt even matter for this discussion.
Yes it's crossplay console and Sony is ok with crossplay console since 2019. The problem today for Sony is Cross progression not cross play
Because it not that simple as some people want it to be .
You even had Phil asking about aspect like cross purchase .
Plus when you have the biggest piece of the pie you have the most to lose.
I am curious if the EU will begin investigating this.
This really feels like splitting hairs when the contract itself states that you need to agree to SIE's cross-platform revenue terms to institute cross-platform gameplay.
Of course it matters because people are not going to all of the sudden sell their PS4s because you can play it somewhere else. Consumers want the freedom to play where they want with whom they want. Sony wanted to control that because they had leverage, ie numbers. They fear you are riding free on their plain going somewhere else and put in restrictions if you happen to spend your money somewhere else.
Crossplay and cross progression were bundled together, documents show Sony did not want to do cross play. It's why they stalled on Rocket League as well. That was not a free to play game at the time.
Lose what? Sony is making more money than ever and are finally adopting cross play. It was all designed to hurt the other platform, not what they could potentially lose.
Compensation can only take place if the game offers cross progression. If there is no cross progression but only cross play, the contract is not very binding.
Besides, I'm sure that the contract must be different if there is no cross progression or MTX as for No Man's Sky
You cant play PS4 games anywere else, the ones were the server was shutdown, so no, it doesnt matter.
They are not, there is plenty of games with cross play without corss progression.
This thread is about cross progression and that is the thing that needs to be discuss.
It was design to help there platform and consumers as much possible which some times hurt other platforms .
But that happens and is part of business .
Sony making money don't mean they not going look out for there interest or try to make more .
I really don't understand why some people can seem to get that .
There are games already with cross play without cross progression.
Yes and as the contract shows that can, and probably is, because they don't want to do the revenue sharing and data reporting. If you want cross play, you either have to have no cross progression or provide Sony with data on your player base and pay potential fees depending on where the chips falls. You don't get an option to have cross progression without the sharing. If that's the only option you want, then your game doesn't get cross play.
Last edited:
I know people will probably ignore your comment because it's easier to keep whatabouting if they ignore it, but good on ya for making this post. A lot of the back-and-forth about who did what first and who ever truly cared is really beside the point in The Year of Our LORD Twenty and Twenty-One.
Sony looks like the typical market bully here, the same one that they've been known as since the early 2000s, and can you all just imagine if Microsoft were doing this back in 2013 how it would've looked to have so many people defending them with "it's just business" and "if you don't like it, don't do business with them" and my personal favorite, "they're just protecting their bottom line?" The absolute state of this community, holy hell.
What?
I think you are confusing things here, if you want cross progression you have to pay Sony a fee in case of losing reveneu, if you dont want to pay a fee you can have cross play only., so yes, you do have a option as there is already games with cross play only enable.
Sorry edited, meant to say cross progression in that second to last line. But again if a dev wants cross progression and cross play, they have to share or have no cross play. This is why it's splitting hairs. The anti competitive policy they have for cross progression and commerce can affect cross play.
Oh, ok.
Yah, cross progression is big no no, it is kind shit because Sony doenst own the games, they are just the ones distribuing it, so they shouldn't have this type of power just because they own the platform.
Sony is the only one that want's to ensure they retain their dominance. Who says the top dog can't get away with murder?
Been a while since i've seen that gif, it still cracks me the hell up.
You know what you dun activated now lol...
I'm not referring to Delusibeta specifically, but I do see they're banned. The post they got banned for was completely unnecessary so it's whatever. Not my business.
The fact is that there were a lot of people coming in here simply to cause drama and/or call out others for being corporate apologists, to the point mods had to step in. This happens far too often in discussions about this.
If you have something like that to say about my post, the reply button is right there.
It wasn't designed to help the consumer because at the ends of the day the consumer had no idea what the stipulation was between Epic and Sony. All the consumer saw was Sony was holding out on cross play and cross progression.
You think Sony wants all this out there for the public to see?
It was design to help there self first of course but also some of there consumers because they get benefits with stuff , deals , skins etc etc .
Since they still want to be the best place to play fortnite and keep there consumer base .
The same way how they leverage there users base to get marketing deals , DLC , MTX , etc etc etc early or exclusive .
Of course it not going to help all consumers but then not all consumers care about the same things and you can even break that down more.
Like I said, the consumer just wants to play Fortnite. If Sony wants to do exclusive content then force them to buy it through their PSN account. Where they play that game should not be such a big deal but they made it one.
Ask yourself, if this compensation is no big deal and somewhat related for the consumer then why is the document sealed from the public?
*update
I have to ask, prior to Sony allowing crossplay and cross progression what stipulations did they have with those who played on PC and mobile and how did it work if you bought stuff on mobile or PC back then and played on PSN?
Last edited:
.
No, they don't. Simple as that.
Sony has a clause for price parity iirc, so how many people do you know that will play 90% of their time on PS and then go into the store. Find something they like and then turn on their PC, Switch and Xbox to purchase it for the same price instead of just pushing X on PS?
It's true as the market leaders you got the most to loose, but I think the amount of money some think Sony will loose is highly exaggerated. As someone said they did even gain something from crossplay/progression/... , because friend A (PS) could be convinced by friend B (XY) to play the game and purchase the nice Aloy pack.
Last edited:
I write down a list of what they will lose compare to what they had before .
Lets look at this under the old model .
Sony had there close Eco systems and ask EPIC what they gain cause under the old one they have this .
1. All the MTX money going to them since you have to buy under PS Store .
2. Fortnite is the biggest game in the world and they have the largest user base , no cross play means buying a PS4 to play with your friends .
Which bring more people and money into there eco system .
3. Even if you allow cross play with no cross progression it make it harder to leave there Eco system because that is where you spend all your money.
Now that is what Sony losing by open up there eco system , they also have to make sure that other companies don't take advantage of them if they do .
It more than 1 issue mix when it comes from there perspective and has long lasting effects that they will have to rethink certain aspect of there business model .
Last edited:
Your points make sense and it does make business sense for them. But I still don't like it as a consumers and I don't think developers are happy about it either.
Have any developers spoke out against this at all?
I saw some people bring up fighting games and Genshin Impact earlier in the thread and trying to frame them as examples.
All in all, if developers are upset about this then I'd care more. But if they aren't the ones saying it's impacting cross play/cross progression, then I'm not going to put words in their mouth to say that this is effectively the reason for it.
I know people want to make Sony the bully, and as a market leader, it would make sense on a surface level. The big 3 all carry weight though. None of them are our friends. They all do things that to many feel are detrimental to the industry as a whole. That's just my personal observation.
The bolded speculation is what I've been pondering the most about. I am a consumer but also I'm the smallest in the chain here so this honestly does not bother me at all. I understand the business move so it makes sense to me. I haven't actively seen developers actively address this towards Sony. In the past, there was a general sense that people wanted cross play and Sony wasn't playing ball. Like devs were sitting out about it directly. But now we have cross play. In some major games we have cross progression. Those are facts. I haven't seen developers frustrated with Sony about this contract in particular, whether directly or indirectly, albeit I haven't been looking for it either.
I saw some people bring up fighting games and Genshin Impact earlier in the thread and trying to frame them as examples.
All in all, if developers are upset about this then I'd care more. But if they aren't the ones saying it's impacting cross play/cross progression, then I'm not going to put words in their mouth to say that this is effectively the reason for it.
I know people want to make Sony the bully, and as a market leader, it would make sense on a surface level. The big 3 all carry weight though. None of them are our friends. They all do things that to many feel are detrimental to the industry as a whole. That's just my personal observation.
You can't discuss details under NDA, which the details in the contract are. Cross play as a general topic is different, hence developers saying vaguely "ask Sony" in the past instead of detailing why cross play wasn't appreciated by Sony.