The was already articles about this. Like I said they have contracts with various companies and actors. They caught a lot of shit for black widow, cruella,and raya from those companies and actors.
The cinema industry touches investment sectors other than video games. They are starting to come out (in the form of a premium stand alone payment) films very close to the release date. The trade unions of the theater market and above all the history that theaters have are slowing down the process of change .. but there is no doubt that we will see more and more releases practically a week after the launch on some service (dune practically came out immediately after).
It'll probably never be.
Not interested in engaging in conversation with you, bud, bye.So you are saying that I have some personal issues and my natural reaction is to come to a Playstation related thread to throw my frustration?
haha, sorry just came to mind and coudnt avoid it.
okok, lets close this conversation here. Arguments are there and anyone can draw conclusions I guess.
Oh, you know four different insults lol.Cinemas were closed you dummy…. how is that an excuse?
Maybe your genius mind can tell me how they could release black window in cinemas when so many cinema's around the world were closed?
And Disney charged a PPV for Black Widow that, it wasnt straight to disney+ for the same price as subscription.
But your dumb ass see's it as a step towards films releasing on stream day 1.
I Loved it when the recent Spiderman came straight to Disney+ day 1, or Eternals. Did you know Dr Strange 2 is coming straight Disney+ next month? No cinema release right? idiot
So still waiting to see the blockbuster films that came straight to stream since 2008…..
i saw it for free on skyq basically 1 week after i saw it at theater
Edmárcio Thomaz Henrique Pinheiro dos Santos.You sure it's not Santos?
This is ignorant to the fact that subscription services aren't the sole method of distribution. Sure you could sell zero copies then that makes sense. But not everyone wants to subscribe.
This is ignoring the differences between first party games and third party games and also ignores the fact that games are also being for with an upfront.
Choosing to not engaging in conversation with certain people doesn't make one angry. Do you avoid people because you're angry? I avoid them because they're insufferable.
But the business you listed involves not having releases on day on subscription.
That is reality.
GT7Ya, we know why people are still talking about that trainwreck. I'm not a Forza or GT fan (GT2 I was) but talk about nickel and diming their customer base. If the future of Sony's games are like GT7, that scares me.
What I explained and you quoted.
netflixlife.com
Just a question, but where do you think that they are going to funnel the revenue that this is going to generate?
We are clearly talking way past each other, but ok ill entertain your notion:
Lol you have got it all arse about face backwards. It is the opposite. Each studios game next could well be make or break. Whereas if they are getting money during development from subscribers it alleviates a lot of the risks.
What do Sony fanboys think that they are going to be using this revenue for?
They do and done lots of different genres, some fail yet they keep trying.
MS is well behind Sony in sales. They are spending cash to stack gamepass to win customers for the long term. Sony is ahead and don't feel that they have to compete directly with gamepass in the same way and don't want to lose revenue. Both are 'greedily' going after market share based on a strategy. The comment is specifically about how switching to an MS model would reduce their revenue and that would mean they would have less cash to put back into games to make them successful products, not that MS cannot be successful and still produce high quality AAA games. It really depends on the numbers. 10 bucks a month is a lot of money if you get that from a majority of users consistently. However it is also a lot of money if you get it from some in addition to the full 70 bucks for any first party game. They know how their customers buy games so they know that they would lose revenue today by putting games on the service day 1. Less revenue per product means you put less value into each product. In a few years, if MS wins significant market share, they might have to change. But for today they just want you to buy their 70 dollar games and 70/75 dollar controllers with shitty battery life.
That was a silly question and I should have removed it.
