While it might be a good fit, I believe NRS is out of question for Sony because I don’t see Microsoft allowing NRS to go away anywhere if it is on the market. Whether it will cost 1b or more Microsoft will bid whatever it takes as studios like NRS are extremely rare.
Regarding the hero box…Essentially only one studio - Insomniac - is doing superhero games right? The question regarding what WB is gonna do is an interesting because even exclusive DC IP will be probably expensive.
I think Sony is more interested in diversification than doubling down right now. That’s why they have invested so much in GaaS. They also need to invest to solve their FPS problem.
I think they invested in GaaS because they literally had 0 games that generate recurring revenue right? They relied on third parties whole gen with exclusive GTA and COD deals. But as they grabbed Bungie they were aware about that problem even before ABK event.
Let’s be real for the amount of time and money needed for single player AAA games they are just not sustainable.
WB appear to be happy with their gaming division’s performance. I could see them open up the licensing to other interested studios/pubs though.
Agreed, I thought we had reached the WB Games off the table point.
apparently not everyone .
Would still be fine to discuss “what if” but yeah, gaming is in too good a place for WB to give up on it with them having a solid performance and lineup coming.
Playstation doesn’t own the Spiderman game rights either but Marvel/Disney entrusted them with it.
Given PlayStation’s recent moves such as its special treatment of Bungie to operate independently and remain multiplatform, as well as building up operations to port more games to PC, I believe there are a number of scenarios that would make SE a good fit with Sony/PlayStation.
I don’t believe they’d take anything from Nintendo consoles, but I could see them keeping stuff off of Xbox consoles.
Sony owns Spider man movie rights though. That’s the difference.
Bungie is a one studio essentially. That’s also the difference.
that was said to investors though according to the report I read. What were they supposed to say? This gaming division sucks its like a noose around our neck. So then the cost would be driven down? Who knows if they sell or not but I don’t think a statement of it performing better than they were told to be a sign that they are or arent selling.
Dang the 5 billion dollar law suit could impact their business plans for acquisition. They might need to conserve that cash.
They probably employee enough lawyers that they could tie this up in courts till the PS6
The lawsuit will fail. I mean it is like with those harassment issues - will just disappear…
Nah, theres lots of precedent for lawsuits that are similar and have won. Theyll either settle or pay the full enchiladas.
The lawsuit reads as nonsense and should only serve as a reminder that anyone can sue anyone for anything - a lawsuit in itself does not imply merit and shouldn’t be treated as such. I don’t think it’s really worth taking seriously at this point.
Not really, it’s very similar to the numerous Apple lawsuits that they have consistently lost on our settled outside of court.
They’re arguing over the 30% commission Sony takes on digital sales and trying to claim that if Sony didn’t charge the (industry standard) 30% that it would mean cheaper prices for consumers - which is inarguably untrue. The prices are set by the publishers and are standard industry wide whether there’s a 30% saving or not, including on Epic Store where they take a smaller percentage cut and games aren’t any cheaper. This same argument could be applied to Microsoft so even if you could argue a loss for Sony on this one the same would apply everywhere else.
Yes, I understand all of that. It’s almost identical to cases that Apple has lost and paid out. It doesnt ultimately matter if you or I think its reasonable, there is precedent.
And the reason they gp after sony is because they have a monopoly share of the console market in Europe right now.
The only similar cases I can find by searching is developers who took apple to court over a number of Apple policies relating to how developers earned money including the 30% cut - this seems very different to consumers trying to sue because they think games would be cheaper if they didn’t charge 30%? Unless you have examples that are more similar.
I think they are suing because there was a law introduced in UK recently. Microsoft is pivoting to streaming and Open App Store policy for a reason (though they fight back against consoles arguing that they are sold at loss and so on)