What I do find interesting is you can buy digital PS games in the PS App, and I presume Apple doesn't get a cut of the proceeds (since the content isn't for the device buying it).
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Sony Bringing PlayStation Video Game Franchises to Mobile by March 2022
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Guess we'll find out. I'm sure PS5 will remain the best place to play Sony's 1st party IPs and they won't disregard the benefits the system brings (like no loading in Ratchet).
Other things like the controller haptics carrying over for some games on PC like Metro Exodus Enhanced Edition show that the "common denominator problem" might not be that big of a deal overall and show promise for Sony's actual IPs.
I’ve always thought a proper age of empires or starcraft would be fantastic on mobile as long as it isn't pay to play.
Last edited:
I don't think folks have noticed the * to the Metro Exodus PS5 controller haptics support. It requires the Steam version of the game.
But like you say we will find out.
That's correct. Apple isn't allowing any game streaming services on the App Store, which is exactly why Amazon, Geforce Now, and Microsoft xCloud are all going with browser-based versions.
Yeah, the Sony PS app is only for remote play, and this battle was fought a few years ago with Steam Link. Apple originally rejected it for exactly this reason — no buying content outside of Apple's IAP system — but later revised its rules to allow for remote purchases of content.
that's because nintendo has used this purpose to release versions of their major IPs that are almost insulting in their presentation.
pokemon go is absolutely hideous, but probably a money maker.
mario run is the thing you might casually play in a spare moment when you need a distraction but otherwise couldnt care about any other time.
havent even touched kart.
I myself cannot separate the big tech supply chain humanitarian crisis and environmental wastelands being created, from the companies that have brought them about. But this is something you are choosing to do, why is this?
I still buy these products myself because I too am a product of my environment and the system under which I have grown up. But when we have an opportunity to effect real change on these behemoths we must reach for it. We can really only achieve this through political or legal systems. The corporate cogs of consumerism must be rearranged, and instead fashioned into a circular economy. As consumers living within this system we need to be actively making the choice to curb the interests of these giants. All corporate interests are driven on profitability as you say, not fairness, not environmental or ethical standards.
Apple struck a deal with Amazon on video on demand services and the rules changed. But is it right or fair that they should be able to change the rules of the market to further benefit themselves whenever it suits them to do so? The rules only changed because Apple wanted them to. Surely leveling the playing field would have been to charge Amazon the same as everyone else and if amazon didnt like it then they shouldn't use the platform. A marketplace who's rules change based on one companies profitability, in effect means the rules can be bought and sold with money. This is not fair play.
If Apple is not monopolistic in its practices, can you point to a company that you think is monopolistic in the marketplace? I ask this because I believe we might be able to draw comparisons between big tech and any company you believe to be monopolistic? I ask not to bait you, but because I want to convince you on your own terms so you know I'm not trying to be disingenuous.
If, on the other hand, you believe Apple are monopolistic in some of its practices then its influence on the marketplace globally should be curbed and its margins cut in order to protect the consumers choice, the consumers pocket, the environment and the individuals in its workshops.
If I had a theoretical list of bad global corporate actors, Apple wouldn't be at the top but it would be up there for sure. Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Paypal, Sony, Tesla all on the same basis. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
This thought process requires me to have 2 opposing ideas in my head. I want the convenience of these companies products yet I also demand better standards from these same companies across all these areas. I actually think its underestimating their capabilities to want or expect anything less.
@Duane Martin if you disagree please join the conversation and set me right, people should be talking about this and I'm up for the debateI wonder if Apple will charge Sony 30% on every purchase made? Or will they strike a special deal. Seems a lot of the big multinationals get a special deal when it comes to the Apple store costs
Its one rule for them, and another for the rest of us 🤯
Just to be clear, I'm not. However, Apple's supply chain and its App Store are two very different business areas with different issues, costs, risks, and benefits.
I don't think we can draw a direct parallel between how Apple handles its supply chain and how it handles developers — especially partnerships big corporate entities like Sony and Amazon. While Apple's corporate ethics inform their business dealings across both of these areas, they have considerably different goals in how they deal with them.
I'd like to think that for at least some of them it falls into the category of enlightened self-interest. I do believe Apple has been trying to do better in this area than it was a decade ago, but there are also much more complex issues at work here, and "trying to do better" doesn't let it off the hook entirely for the problems that it's still creating, even if those problems are less severe than they once were.
To be fair, Apple created a new "Video Partner Program" that was available and applied equally to everybody who was in the same business as Amazon Prime Video. I don't think that's "changing the rules of the market" so much as "creating a new market segment."
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing Apple did wrong in this case was not being as transparent as they should have been about the existence of this program, but I think that was a tactical error more than an ethical failure. To the best of my knowledge (and I've spoken to people inside the broadcasting industry), Apple didn't keep this program a secret, and it's not hard to look on the App Store and figure out which developers would qualify.
By the time Apple did disclose this program, it had over 130 companies on board, ranging from Amazon Prime, Disney+, and HBO Max, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Now, one could make the argument that it's not fair to other developers who weren't offering those services, but the deal was made in exchange for something that only those companies could give Apple: tight integration with Apple's video streaming technologies such as Universal Search, Siri, AirPlay, and single-sign on.
Apple could have just as easily offered to collect the same 30% from in-app purchases and pay them a 15% commission back for the business they've generated through their commitment to integrating more tightly with Apple's technologies. While that would have perhaps satisfied the argument that everybody was being treated fairly, I hope we can agree that it's little more than a semantic difference.
I'm afraid that "monopolistic" is a word that has lost all meaning in today's big tech world. I think if we apply the word "monopolistic" to Apple, then we basically have to apply that to any large corporation that's focused on seeking profit, which is pretty much the very definition of any big corporation — at least in the U.S.
You don't need to convince me of the evils of capitalism, and I don't think there's any company — even Apple — that gets a pass in this area. I look at all of them on the basis of degrees of evil. I trust Apple more than I trust Google, Amazon, or Facebook, but that's also like saying I would trust Al Capone more than I'd trust Jeffrey Dahmer.
However, one of the best examples of a "monopolistic" tech company was probably the last one that really did have a monopoly, which was Microsoft. If you've ever read through some of the history of Microsoft through the late eighties and early nineties, I think you'll agree that they were considerably more ruthless in their approach to stifling competition and attempting to dominate the marketplace at any cost. I'm not sure any of today's tech companies have ever reached the level of pure capitalistic evil that was pre-2000 Microsoft.
By definition, Apple doesn't have a monopoly, but I'm not so naive as to believe that it wouldn't be just as bad as Microsoft if it did. Ditto for Google and Amazon and Facebook. Power corrupts. All of these companies exhibit classic "monopolistic" behaviour that's only held in check by the fact that they push against each other in various ways. While people like to talk about the Apple-Google duopoly, I don't think that's a threat because the aims of the two companies are so often diametrically opposed to each other. They may align at certain times, but mostly they act as a check against the other one become too dominant. At least in mobile platforms, as that ship already sailed years ago when it comes to search.
Each of these companies is looking after its own self-interests and profit motives. It's only when these interests align too closely, and for too long, that we begin to have a problem.
Yes, I agree with that completely, although finding the balance of how to do that is often tricky, and something I generally leave up to people far more intelligent than I am.
Yup, I think we agree on that list as well, just not necessarily the order. However, I'd be hard-pressed to find a multi-billion dollar company, or perhaps even a multi-million dollar company, that wouldn't make that list.
On this I think we're also pretty much in lockstep. Apple really does try in a lot of areas, but I'm also under no illusion that even this "trying" is simply a matter of its own enlightened self-interest. Talking up privacy and environmental issues plays well with much of its consumer base, many of which have always been far more concerned about such things. It's not that Apple is being deceptive here — I do think the attempts its making are genuine, and there are some reasonably good people sitting in the driver's seat — but it's naive to ascribe any of what Apple is doing to pure altruism.
if sony ported these games to apple arcade, i'd play them:
•champions of norrath
•spider-man 2 (2004)
•champions of norrath
•spider-man 2 (2004)
Because Nintendo is quarter-assing it.
Imagine if they just brought out the "Nintendo Switch" app on iPad and allowed users to play their Switch games on the iPad Pro, provided you used a compliant (Switch Pro?) controller. Both Apple and Nintendo would make an absolute killing.
As far as I can tell Nintendo is already making a killing and they don't have to share any of it with anyone else.
Why would they want to change that (plus giving up control of their hardware/software integration for first party games). Why would devs develop for this Nintendo Switch App on the app store instead of just developing for Apple and not having to pay twice (Nintendo licensing fees and Apple fee)?
You have made an unsubstantiated claim that "a lot of the big multinationals get a special deal" so sorry if I made an incorrect assumption that you were trolling. Perhaps you are unaware that Sony is reputed to charge 30% on the Playstation store, though the actual number is not public. The 30% number is pretty standard across the industry as you can see in this article. Based on the facts that are easily accessible with a little searching on the internet there really is nothing to discuss and it is unlikely, given the tone of your posting, that anything I write will change your mind.@Duane Martin if you disagree please join the conversation and set me right, people should be talking about this and I'm up for the debate
Care to discuss that?
Well, that's part of how Apple "innovates"...by inventing new ways to take more of your money while giving you less & less. When they say, "It's the least we can do"....they literally mean it!
As long as they don’t go the freemium route like Nintendo, I would be interested in seeing these games on Apple platforms. Would love to see uncharted!
They have. But man am I sick of the zombie/horror/demon genre. It’s been done to death…
Are they going to be AAA games or simply 'mobilised' versions of Sony's games.
I don't get thousand dollar iPads just to play $5 or F2P mobile games - that's low hanging fruit
I don't care for subscription and streaming services when I already have the capable hardware to play the games already.
If it is not AAA games, than there is nothing remarkable or big about this, the App Store is 99% F2P mobile games, I think the thousands of them is enough for whales and their exploited OCD.
I don't get thousand dollar iPads just to play $5 or F2P mobile games - that's low hanging fruit
I don't care for subscription and streaming services when I already have the capable hardware to play the games already.
If it is not AAA games, than there is nothing remarkable or big about this, the App Store is 99% F2P mobile games, I think the thousands of them is enough for whales and their exploited OCD.