LogFAQs > #974842804

adjl posted...

But Sony isn't benefitting from the game not being more available. They're benefitting from having it in addition to other things that all add up to put them ahead of competitors. They would suffer if it were taken away from them.

and? that's not anti-consumer. that's anti-business. sony isn't the consumer. you are the consumer.

to quote us district judge jacqueline scott corley, when responding to an argument presented by the ftc
"it's not the harm to sony we care about."

adjl posted...

It does breed competition, sure, but it's a thoroughly lazy way to do it that yields no direct benefits to the market, only harm that must then be offset by other companies' efforts to compensate for what was lost. That's not something to be lauded. Quite the opposite, in fact. This goes back to my initial question: How does having fewer independent companies result in more competition?

ah yes, quite the opposite. meanwhile when there really weren't exclusives, the video game market collapsed, because there was no incentive to actually make something good and for the specific hardware capabilities of a single platform.

adjl posted...

It being worthwhile is entirely relevant because whatever worth they're finding in it is based not on how much money it will make directly, but on the broader effects the release will have on their market position. That means when those ten years are up, if keeping CoD on Nintendo systems is no longer necessary to erode Sony's market share, it's going to stop being on Nintendo systems. Which is why I say not to get too attached to the idea. The six people that bought a Switch hoping that it might get CoD are going to be able to enjoy it for the next few years, but after that it's anyone's guess.

if you want to argue what could happen in 10 years, then i can just as easily say that in 10 years nintendo will absorb microsoft. this is why trying to argue hypotheticals is stupid when there isn't an precedence, especially a hypothetical 10 years from now.

i'm talking about right now. not eventually. even just one year ago, no one would ever have imagined that activision would be bought. who is to say what the landscape will look like a year for now, or even two. but what we do know is that contracts and agreements have been made, under oath even, that abk titles will stay where there are and also become more available than they currently have been.

adjl posted...

By insisting that making Sony unable to rely on CoD was a good thing for the market. Whatever "other platforms" get CoD (noting that your "other platforms" diagram just includes Nintendo's and a bunch of minor PC services nobody cares about), removing it from Sony's would be a massive reduction in the number of people who want to play CoD and currently can (particularly where so many people have already made their console buying decisions based on that). However many "other platforms" get the game, when such a large platform with so many people loses it, that's making it less available.

you cannot make something less available by making it more available. period. moreover, call of duty is not leaving playstation, and not once did i ever even imply that. try again.

jim ryan doesn't want microsoft to have call of duty because playstation enjoys marketing rights, a large share of microtransaction fees, and exclusive content. call of duty alone funded horizon forbidden west, the last of us part 2, and other first party sony titles. sony losing the amount of revenue they get from it is what they're upset at, because it's what they have been depending on.