Comment on [deleted]
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 year agoIf Sony doesn’t invest in their own studios, the consumer just doesn’t get the game those studios make. Without PlayStation, gaming would look significant worse over the last 30 years
Not true, Sony could have easily created or funded the studios anyway and make games just like they produce films right now under Columbia Pictures; they do not need to run a hardware business to make and distribute software, that’s what I’m saying. Nowadays it’s an artificial limitation to try and boost hardware sales.
Most of my favorite games are Sony exclusives.
And wouldn’t you like it if more people could play them and share those great experiences? Do you really want meaningless limitations on who can participate with art?
halvo317@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
I think you aren’t realizing what you implying. Companies that just fund studios for publishing rights are companies like EA, Activision, Take Two, Ubisoft, and Tencent. Every one of these publishers has very aggressive microtransaction platforms. Plus, they all publish predominantly multiplayer games. If the only way for me to get single player games is to buy a console, so be it.
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 1 year ago
It’s not though, that is a false dichotomy. Just because the major publishers are pushing trash because it’s profitable does not mean that single player games are impossible for cross platform.
Look at FromSoft, Bloodborne is made with the same engine as Dark Souls 3 which is available cross platform, same as Dark Souls 1 and 2, yet Bloodborne is exclusive because Sony is intentionally crafting a captive audience.
Both, your gripes with major publishers and console exclusivity, come from corporate putting sales above all else, yet you excuse one but not the other.
Exclusivity has nothing to do with viability
halvo317@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
It does when the company funding the game development wants a return on investment.