Comment

Comment on [deleted]

<- View Parent

abbotsbury@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer

I mean, it kinda is. The end result is the same: a product that can only be used in a closed ecosystem.

source

Sort:hotnew top

halvo317@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
There’s a practical and ethical difference between creating something for a closed ecosystem and taking a product in an open ecosystem and closing it.

source
- abbotsbury@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
  But they have the same result, so ultimately it has the same rating of consumer friendliness, which is “non”
  
  source
  - halvo317@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    If 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. Most of my favorite games are Sony exclusives.
    
    source
    abbotsbury@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago
    
    If 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?
    
    source
    -> View More Comments