Ovakva kupovina štetna je dugoročno za sve nas igrače i ne vidim iskreno pravi benefit za industriju u cjelini s ovakvim pristupom koji je trebao davno nestati.
Nije li bolje svu tu silnu lovu koju će iskrcati za vremensku ekskluzivnost uložiti u kupnju novog first party studija ili u kreiranje novog “AAA IP-a?”
Šteti korisnicima drugih platformi osim PS5. A jel se može imat i jedno i drugo? Pa može se.
Šta je, ti smeta što će "možda" Sony dominirati sa PS5? 
Sony radi isto što i Microsoft. Radi "dealove", samo što je Sony bitno agresivniji u tome od MS-a. Sve je to biznis. Nije ilegalno. Dal to utječe na gamere? Kako za koga. Ko će imat benefite od toga? Sigurno budući korisnici PS5. Ja se sećam, Flipperu, da si bio sretan ko malo dijete kad si zaigrao Mass Effect na svom X360, jel. Si dobio benefite od tog deala? Pa jesi. Isto sad što će imat i korisnici PS5.
Dosta se raspravlja o tome na ERI i to što je rekao Imran. Ovo je jedan od postova sa zdravim razumom i barem ko gleda na ovo iz šire perspektive, ne samo iz perspektive potrošača/korisnika. I apsolutno se slažem sa svime što je rekao.
Skimming through this thread again and man, people are kinda taking this a bit too hard here. Sure, I get how this can be annoying for non-PS players, the fact they get less for not having the right plastic box is pretty dumb. But some people take a lot of umbrage from a company trying to influence them into buying their product. Walled gardens can be too detrimental for the consumer, such as the case of Apple prohibiting Microsoft from bringing Game Pass to iOS. However, walled gardens could also be a net positive for consumers that actually buy the product and invest in the ecosystem. Microsoft, as open as they claim to be, is still a walled garden, but they're more subtle with it. There's a reason Game Pass isn't on PlayStation and Switch and probably will never be on those platforms for a long time. To leverage the benefits of Microsoft's Game Pass, you actually have to pay the subscription and invest in that ecosystem. Microsoft is a lot more accessible than PlayStation, but they're no more pro-consumer than Sony is. If a platform is beneficial for the consumer and gives them a lot of value and content, then how is that platform anti-consumer? Netflix will never have their original titles on competing platforms because they want people to subscribe specifically to them. Both Netflix and Microsoft sign checks to make sure certain content is only on their platform, be it for a limited time or for eternity. Sony is doing the same thing as Microsoft, except they're a lot more aggressive with it because they know the PS5 is a much larger financial hurdle for consumers to jump through. They want consumers to feel the PS5 is worth spending hundreds of dollars for. They're incentivizing consumers, not "holding them hostage". Consumers have the choice to opt out of the PlayStation ecosystem and go elsewhere. Sony doesn't have the power to strip that choice away from them. Instead, they have to make sure consumers don't want to leave PlayStation and to do that, these third-party deals are crucial in keeping them on board. It's a selling point Sony is offering consumers. If they're being anti-competitive (such as prohibiting Microsoft from selling the Xbox Series X in certain storefronts because they signed an agreement with a retailer chain), then they're also being anti-consumer. That's what Apple is doing with Game Pass, so that would make them anti-consumer. They refuse to allow a competing service to be sold on their ecosystem, despite them having a massive market share.
So, yes, these third-party deals aren't exactly fun or exciting, but they are designed to influence you. Making dramatized arguments about how Sony is "forcing" the helpless gamers into buying their console won't get us anywhere and thus creates an infantile thread that never ends. I personally hope Sony pursues a more accessible strategy like Microsoft is doing, but that's not how the industry is at the moment. In the meantime, let's try not to paint Sony as some kind of imperialist empire that pillages the industry just because they make aggressive third-party deals so people would want to buy their product. Because that practice is fair game and always has been. it's not monopolistic, it's just aggressive, and that's a perfectly legal business practice for Sony to pursue. Albeit, it's not my favorite one, but it is what it is.
Ionako će im to prolaziti još samo ovu generaciju i nakon toga sve ide u streaming model na bilo kojem ekranu za €10 mjesečno. Tada više neće biti ni console ratova ni ekskluzivnih prepucavanja ni ničega. Plaćat ćemo Sonyu, Microsoftu i Nintendu svakome po €10 mjesečno i igrat hrpetinu igara bilo gdje, bilo kad, na bilo čemu. I svi ćemo biti sretni, i mi gameri i oni kao proizv...izdavači.
