5 ms·

I don't know how you arrive at those conclusions. None of this make sense to me. The thing you fear is already reality. Console manufacturers have always been t

by inexcf 3y ago

I don't know how you arrive at those conclusions. None of this make sense to me. The thing you fear is already reality. Console manufacturers have always been trying to force exclusivity. Which they can because they own the store. For a long time exclusives were the only thing carrying console sales, and forcing customers to buy multiple consoles. Why would anyone want to be bought? There would be nothing to gain for devs. No one would need to accept any deals to get on a platform since they wouldn't need to use the manufacturer's store. Currently the deal is "Money + Access to the platform". Third party stores would cut this deal down to just "Money". Thus exclusivity deals would get a lot more expensive for Sony, Nintendo etc. Thus they would be able to buy less "developers, game engine vendors etc en masse". Indie devs would have a much easier time competing without having to bow to the gatekeepers demands. I really don't get your reasoning.

robertlagrant 3y ago
The info you're missing is: game dev companies already get bought. The question you should answer is: how much would an unsubsidised console cost?
- Qwertious 3y ago
  >The question you should answer is: how much would an unsubsidised console cost? (I'm not the person you replied to, but) About as much as a gaming PC, because that's exactly what it is these days. Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription. Gaming PCs should still cost a bit more, because: 1. they aren't sold in vast quantities with the same spec, and so supplier can't negotiate vast discounts 2. they often don't have games nearly as optimised for them, because different PCs have different configurations, so you need to buy much specs for the same performance 3. consoles likely factor in total procurement costs over the lifetime of the console, and so they can be cheaper initially and lower price more slowly than they lower costs, to recoup some of the deficit However of course in practice if you can't subsidise your game console with game sales, then (2) and (3) probably vanish.
- inexcf 3y ago
  > game dev companies already get bought. That is what i am saying. It already happens. Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it? If manufactures had the money to buy all the devs on masse they would already. Third party markets would only lessen their negotiation power. Devs could just go somewhere else. Especially with your other point below. > how much would an unsubsidised console cost? More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing?
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it? Not really, unless it suddenly becomes easy to develop and market a game for all platforms. Pushing your code to a shop instead 3 shops won't be an amazing saving. > More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing? Well - if fewer consoles exist, each with 10 different store fronts you have to now push to, presumably that means games cost more, as they're selling fewer units, and (less important, but still painful) they have to figure out which store should have which integrations / price / deals/ etc.
dotnet00 3y ago
Things have pretty visibly been getting pushed away from exclusivity by the console makers. MS commits to bringing all first party Xbox games to PC and Sony has ported over a lot of its most popular titles as well.

by inexcf 3y ago

robertlagrant 3y ago

The info you're missing is: game dev companies already get bought. The question you should answer is: how much would an unsubsidised console cost?

Qwertious 3y ago
>The question you should answer is: how much would an unsubsidised console cost? (I'm not the person you replied to, but) About as much as a gaming PC, because that's exactly what it is these days. Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Except actual gaming PCs of the same price would have lower TCO, since you don't need to pay for an Xbox Live/PSN subscription. Gaming PCs should still cost a bit more, because: 1. they aren't sold in vast quantities with the same spec, and so supplier can't negotiate vast discounts 2. they often don't have games nearly as optimised for them, because different PCs have different configurations, so you need to buy much specs for the same performance 3. consoles likely factor in total procurement costs over the lifetime of the console, and so they can be cheaper initially and lower price more slowly than they lower costs, to recoup some of the deficit However of course in practice if you can't subsidise your game console with game sales, then (2) and (3) probably vanish.
inexcf 3y ago
> game dev companies already get bought. That is what i am saying. It already happens. Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it? If manufactures had the money to buy all the devs on masse they would already. Third party markets would only lessen their negotiation power. Devs could just go somewhere else. Especially with your other point below. > how much would an unsubsidised console cost? More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing?
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > Opening more markets makes it less attractive for games companies to accept getting bought, doesn't it? Not really, unless it suddenly becomes easy to develop and market a game for all platforms. Pushing your code to a shop instead 3 shops won't be an amazing saving. > More and they would sell less of them? Making it less attractive for game devs to develop for said console. So what am i missing? Well - if fewer consoles exist, each with 10 different store fronts you have to now push to, presumably that means games cost more, as they're selling fewer units, and (less important, but still painful) they have to figure out which store should have which integrations / price / deals/ etc.

dotnet00 3y ago

Things have pretty visibly been getting pushed away from exclusivity by the console makers. MS commits to bringing all first party Xbox games to PC and Sony has ported over a lot of its most popular titles as well.