Support NeoGAF

[PaintTinJr]

..
Can you provide a recent example of them using the extinguish tactic?

Is that somehow necessary to validate the point I already made? I'm not sure how you are arguing against the point I made, rather than trying to undermine the person making it.

And you know the same thing could be said about PlayStation when they entered the market, don't you?

How exactly? They were an engineering company first and foremost and delivered revolutionary hardware to empower developers, at a good price and did it using optical storage that had advantages but had already failed for at least two other consoles prior and was a risky choice at the time following in the wake of the Philips CD-i and Sega CD. Your comment suggests it was all in the bag from day one, and forget they expanded the market massively.

 

[Three]

You dont have a damn clue what goes on behind the scenes. Im going to go out on a limb here any say there was a. Contractual obligation just like other games on geforce now. Not even close. Do you think the game was on there for free? Seriously keep shitting up this thread with

Did you not read the link I sent where somebody asked to remove it and confirmed there was no contractual obligation in place? The game is not there "for free" the game is sold on Steam or Epic Games store and people who bought it there stream it with a Geforce Now subscription. This wasn't/isn't a "free games" streaming service like Gamepass or PS+.

EDIT: Saw you edited your post. Don't talk about armchair dealings and not knowing about what is going on behind the scenes when you are the one saying " a deal was there and it was over" just because it suits your narrative. Some evidence is at least there that there was a misunderstanding and that GFN offered these games and was asked to remove them out of the blue. Evidence that they offered the service without permission too in the link. Meaning if they had some timed deal they would have clearly known about the period and there would be no misunderstanding and no need for ABK and the like to call them up and ask them to remove it.

 

[oldergamer]

Yes? Did you not read the link I sent where somebody asked to remove it and confirmed there was no contractual obligation in place? The game is not there "for free" the game is sold on Steam or Epic Games store and people who bought it there stream it with a Geforce Now subscription. This wasn't/isn't a "free games" streaming service like Gamepass or PS+.

EDIT: Saw you edited your post. Don't talk about armchair dealings and not knowing about what is going on behind the scenes when you are the one saying a "or deal was there and it was over" just because it suits your narrative. Some evidence is at least there that there was a misunderstanding and that GFN offered these games and was asked to remove them out of the blue. Evidence that they offered the service without agreements too in the link. Meaning if they had some timed deal they would have clearly known about it and there would be no misunderstanding and no need for ABK and the like to call them up and asked them to remove it.

That link proves nothing imo. You think a developer that self published is going to have a similar deal to a publisher with multiple titles? Everything you are saying is confirmation bias. Its either this or that. Two things can be possible at the same time. Publishers arent in the habit of putting multiple games on services without so.e sort of deal in place. It's business 101.

As was mentioned multiple times, games are ofter removed from geforce now

 

[DarkMage619]

It didn't because they removed it from the more widely available GFN and PS. Activison removed their games from free streaming services before the acquisition too. It didn't add more devices. Hellblade did not add more devices. Dito for Bethesda, removed its games.

Activision removed them from streaming services. Guess who is returning them back? Bethesda titles were also returned to a streaming platform after leaving. If they weren't there before but are now that is more devices. I also question how widely available GeForce Now is when again it isn't on consoles and the titles come and go frequently.

Because Take 2 made deals with Stadia. Warner bros made deals with PS Now and Gamepass. Activision and Bethesda removed it and made deals with MS. MS removed their games (hellblade and co) in favour of xCloud. The subscription wars have begun but this vertical merger is in no way providing you more choice or more platforms. You have exchanged buying games and being able to independently choose who your streaming provider is for companies fighting for exclusives and removing it from other device and streaming platforms. It's less platforms not more.

We'll just have to agree to disagree because I have mentioned a few titles that weren't streaming at all but now are or will be after MS acquisitions. By the way many of those titles are still available for purchase on both Xbox and PC so there was no loss of a retail purchase option at all.

We've already gone over how GeForce Now was never the flexible option you claims it to be when it doesn't cover the same number of devices and games leave the service. Also having to juggle between one streaming service and a different retailer doesn't really sound like a convenient solution. Since you know so much about GeForce Now can you give the subscription figures? I'd imagine more people subscribe to it than Game pass yes?

Who was laughing? If some idiot said Street fighter was coming to more platforms now and is actually Sony being great though I would have laughed my ass off. Same with dead rising and other games on xbox.

You were mentioning how MS was taking away titles from PlayStation. I was mentioning that many titles were taken away from Xbox as well. There was plenty of trash talk around here about various titles not hitting Xbox. Perhaps you just missed them. The point is no game is ever guaranteed to hit a platform even if historically it was there in the past.

I have not seen any circumstance where a title removed from a non-PlayStation platform was then added to an entirely new class of devices. If that had occurred one could reasonably argue that the game had a wider reach even if it was no longer on one particular console.

Sony exclusive deals are intended to get you to buy a PlayStation. MS acquisitions are intended to get you into the Xbox ecosystem. That ecosystem extends beyond just console so the reach is wider even if PlayStation specifically is omitted.

My original point is that just because PlayStation gets left out doesn't mean there are now fewer total ways to play a title particularly when those games are now available on streaming platforms like tablets and smartphones when they weren't before. If MS made games Xbox consoles exclusive I could see your point about fewer ways to play.

 

[Three]

That link proves nothing imo. You think a developer that self published is going to have a similar deal to a publisher with multiple titles? Everything you are saying is confirmation bias. Its either this or that. Two things can be possible at the same time. Publishers arent in the habit of putting multiple games on services without so.e sort of deal in place. It's business 101.

If you say so but the link isn't just empty words because you say so. There was no deal for that dev, there wasn't even explicit consent so I'm not sure why you're talking about "similar deals" or different deals for indie devs. Did you even read it? As if nvidia said you know what we won't even ask this dev, they're indie.

Ok let me throw a hypothetical question at you instead.

You are a publisher or developer selling games. There is a service that increases the install base of potential customers to your games you already offer on Steam, EGS by allowing those without a gaming PC to buy your games and play them on thin clients like mobiles, TVs and laptops. It requires absolutely no dev work or additional cost to you if your game is already on PC. Now why wouldn't you want to allow the service to offer your games?

Try and think of a good reason why.
Because you want to make exclusivity deals with cloud platform holders. You want to be able to control your content like that.

ABK in particular even confirmed
they opted to remove their games in anticipation of a commercial agreement with NVIDIA. NVIDIA just assumed that seeing as they hadn't complained and were OK during a 3-4 yr beta they would be OK after. ABK and other devs and publishers know other streaming cloud services started paying for content and that's why they control their content and the only reason they reduce their potential customers to begin with.

The Long Dark: March 2020 please remove our game from GFN you don't have permission.
The Long Dark: April 2020 https://www.polygon.com/2020/4/15/2...games-april-the-long-dark-fallout-wolfenstein

 

[Three]

My original point is that just because PlayStation gets left out doesn't mean there are now fewer total ways to play a title particularly when those games are now available on streaming platforms like tablets and smartphones when they weren't before. If MS made games Xbox consoles exclusive I could see your point about fewer ways to play.

There are now objectively fewer total ways to play those titles. The fact that they were simply removed from GFN for no reason or the idea that GFN is available on less hardware is wrong. It's available on more, including MacOS, and in more countries. if you really wanted to play GFN on an xbox you just open the browser too (you would be double counting xbox and xcloud there for whatever reason but you do you). It's xbox blocking a native GFN app there anyway. They have made the games xbox platform exclusive. That's their perogative but let's not pretend this is a good thing and it actually means more platforms when it's objectively less.

 

[onesvenus]

Is that somehow necessary to validate the point I already made? I'm not sure how you are arguing against the point I made, rather than trying to undermine the person making it.

Well, at this point we have no evidence of Microsoft using the EEE strategy in the videogame market. I'd argue they haven't used that strategy in decades so using that as an argument does not make sense rationally IMHO.

And I don't want to undermine you but using that as an argument shows quite a hate for Microsoft that invalidates most of your other points. There's no valid discussion with someone who is not discussing rationally and brings a lot of background context to it.

How exactly? They were an engineering company first and foremost and delivered revolutionary hardware to empower developers, at a good price and did it using optical storage that had advantages but had already failed for at least two other consoles prior and was a risky choice at the time following in the wake of the Philips CD-i and Sega CD. Your comment suggests it was all in the bag from day one, and forget they expanded the market massively.

Well, we'll disagree on the market growing being a result of PlayStation or PlayStation being a result of the market growing and them being nicely positioned. I think that any other company could have disrupted the videogame market as they did and we could end up being in a similar position as we are now.

And again, Sony used all the work and money from all their other divisions to get that nice hardware at that price and convince game developers to publish games exclusively for it. This not only happened during the PS1 era but also during the PS3 era when they famously wasted all the profit they had made with PS1 and PS2 and had to live with the profits other parts of the company brought in.

 

[geary]

Arent you guys tired of all this discussion? Do you even have time to game? It's like running in circles with some of you. I would love to see the same dedication in discussion about games as well.

 

[Kagey K]

Whats going to happen to activision when the buyout doesn't go through?

 

[Kagey K]

Arent you guys tired of all this discussion? Do you even have time to game? It's like running in circles with some of you. I would love to see the same dedication in discussion about games as well.

This is my unwind time (usually)after gaming or while at work.

Don't worry I still get time to play games. I usually don't talk about them here, because everyone will just tell me they suck anyway.

 

[pasterpl]

downloading and streaming was available before with no incentive to remove it. The reason it isn't available anymore was because after 3-4 years MS removed it from the service to have it exclusive to their subscription service.

Um what? What is it then? What do you consider GFN to be?

It's cloud streaming, nvidia even call it cloud. You seem to think that it's streaming from your device or something? It isn't, it's on nvidia servers which link your Steam and EGS accounts and you can stream your games from the cloud.

You were specifically talking about MS, not GFN. Stop moving goalposts.

So do MS though.

Sort of have to, their strategy is very gp focus, they want games on gamepass to stay there indefinitely, only way to achieve it is to own that game ip/developer/publisher. We know that Sony streaming strategy is different, so they don't need that now, they don't even include all of their own games already released) not mentioning day 1 on their gp competitor. Ms wants gp to have as many games as possible that are there permanently + new instalments to hit day 1 for popular franchises.

 

[Three]

You were specifically talking about MS, not GFN. Stop moving goalposts.

I'm not moving any goalposts but I'm confused about what you're referring to. What are you referring to that isn't cloud streaming then? Something specific I mentioned about MS? Can you elaborate please.

Sort of have to, their strategy is very gp focus, they want games on gamepass to stay there indefinitely, only way to achieve it is to own that game ip/developer/publisher. We know that Sony streaming strategy is different, so they don't need that now, they don't even include all of their own games already released) not mentioning day 1 on their gp competitor. Ms wants gp to have as many games as possible that are there permanently + new instalments to hit day 1 for popular franchises.

You're right there. It's not the only way they do it though, they do both. Paid exclusives with third parties and buying studios.

 

[DarkMage619]

There are now objectively fewer total ways to play those titles. The fact that they were simply removed from GFN for no reason or the idea that GFN is available on less hardware is wrong. It's available on more, including MacOS, and in more countries. if you really wanted to play GFN on an xbox you just open the browser too (you would be double counting xbox and xcloud there for whatever reason but you do you). It's xbox blocking a native GFN app there anyway. They have made the games xbox platform exclusive. That's their perogative but let's not pretend this is a good thing and it actually means more platforms when it's objectively less.

Pretty sure you can access Game pass through web browsers so there is no reason you can't use it on a Mac. You also aren't counting games that currently aren't streaming anywhere like Diablo that will be streaming after the acquisition. If you can't stream certain games like Diablo on GeForce Now it wouldn't be an alternative to Game pass no matter which two additional countries it's in.

You keep trying to change the subject to GeForce Now but it still doesn't refute my point there are more smartphones and tablets than PlayStations so in the event that PlayStation doesn't get a MS game after the acquisition there are still more total alternative devices out there.

You mentioned Xbox allowing access to GeForce Now on the web but doesn't Sony block the use on Game pass on their web browsers? Does Sony allow GeForce Now to stream on their system at least? If Sony releases a fully functional web browser on PlayStation it would eliminate them from ever missing any titles MS 'took' from them. Apparently GeForce Now would be an option as well. This would fix the 'problem' entirely. Maybe this isn't a MS problem at all.

The Game pass streaming option is absolutely a good thing for anyone who isn't protesting the use of MS services for some strange reason. More total devices, with more games that aren't suddenly being removed from the service, plus a retail and native play option as well on consoles and PC. I don't think there are any better comprehensive services available.

 

[Kagey K]

Pretty sure you can access Game pass through web browsers so there is no reason you can't use it on a Mac. You also aren't counting games that currently aren't streaming anywhere like Diablo that will be streaming after the acquisition. If you can't stream certain games like Diablo on GeForce Now it wouldn't be an alternative to Game pass no matter which two additional countries it's in.

You keep trying to change the subject to GeForce Now but it still doesn't refute my point there are more smartphones and tablets than PlayStations so in the event that PlayStation doesn't get a MS game after the acquisition there are still more total alternative devices out there.

You mentioned Xbox allowing access to GeForce Now on the web but doesn't Sony block the use on Game pass on their web browsers? Does Sony allow GeForce Now to stream on their system at least? If Sony releases a fully functional web browser on PlayStation it would eliminate them from ever missing any titles MS 'took' from them. Apparently GeForce Now would be an option as well. This would fix the 'problem' entirely. Maybe this isn't a MS problem at all.

The Game pass streaming option is absolutely a good thing for anyone who isn't protesting the use of MS services for some strange reason. More total devices, with more games that aren't suddenly being removed from the service, plus a retail and native play option as well on consoles and PC. I don't think there are any better comprehensive services available.

Let's not forget that Sony themselves aren't supportive of Geforce now despite releasing games on PC.

https://www.ign.com/articles/god-of-war-pulled-from-geforce-now

 

[DenchDeckard]

Well you were making the point about PlayStation buying up timed exclusives, and what are timed exclusives if not just another form of marketing - it costs you money in the hope of increasing sales -, no?

If you can't identify the difference between typical marketing of banners on websites, adverts, etc and paying to have a game not appear on another system that's wild to me.

By the way, you can't just use marketing funds to pay for exclusivity...which I imagine some companies do get creative with how they balance the books but a marketing deal would be spending money advertising the game with the publisher and a paid for exclusive would also be paying a sum to keep it off the platform...probably somewhere close to what the publisher would expect to recoup on the co peting platform within the exclusivity time frame.

That's why companies have to try different things, Sonys dominance is so extreme and within its fans due to the exclusive games, deals they have paid for and all around over enthusiastic fanbase, it probably costs more to sign off those dealsfor a competitor etc. The other major negative is sonys hardcore fans are so entitled that usually when some other company tries to secure a deal (prime example, tomb raider) they literally pull the developer or publisher over the coals with the help of their "journalists" to demand answers and create negative press...basically killing the deal before it can help a competing platform. crushing any fair competition, you could say.

So, Microsoft are using their asset...money to secure desirability in different ways...After the initial butt hurt from fans over the purchase acceptance will happen and Microsoft can announce and release games on their services as they please.

It would also be great imo in reporters or journalists asked Sony hard questions...how long is ffvii exclusive for? how about ff xvi etc?

Level the playing field. Are 70 pound games working? How are the sales of exclusives this gen on ps5?

 

[Kagey K]

If you can't identify the difference between typical marketing of banners on websites, adverts, etc and paying to have a game not appear on another system that's wild to me.

By the way, you can't just use marketing funds to pay for exclusivity...which I imagine some companies do get creative with how they balance the books but a marketing deal would be spending money advertising the game with the publisher and a paid for exclusive would also be paying a sum to keep it off the platform...probably somewhere close to what the publisher would expect to recoup on the co peting platform within the exclusivity time frame.

That's why companies have to try different things, Sonys dominance is so extreme and within its fans due to the exclusive games, deals they have paid for and all around over enthusiastic fanbase, it probably costs more to sign off those dealsfor a competitor etc. The other major negative is sonys hardcore fans are so entitled that usually when some other company tries to secure a deal (prime example, tomb raider) they literally pull the developer or publisher over the coals with the help of their "journalists" to demand answers and create negative press...basically killing the deal before it can help a competing platform. crushing any fair competition, you could say.

So, Microsoft are using their asset...money to secure desirability in different ways...After the initial butt hurt from fans over the purchase acceptance will happen and Microsoft can announce and release games on their services as they please.

It would also be great imo in reporters or journalists asked Sony hard questions...how long is ffvii exclusive for? how about ff xvi etc?

Level the playing field. Are 70 pound games working? How are the sales of exclusives this gen on ps5?

Keep in mind that MS spends very little of thier advertising on Xbox.

It's Sony that traditionally outspends its competitors to advertise thier wares. To an abnormal degree.

https://venturebeat.com/games/plays...40-of-tv-ad-spend-from-gaming-brands-in-2020/

If you are market leader you shouldn't be outspending your competition.

 

[Three]

Pretty sure you can access Game pass through web browsers so there is no reason you can't use it on a Mac.

Ok, so why exclude GFN in a browser on an xbox? Not even sure how xcloud on xbox would be "more platforms" when well, you've already counted xbox as a platform, but I digress.

You also aren't counting games that currently aren't streaming anywhere like Diablo that will be streaming after the acquisition. If you can't stream certain games like Diablo on GeForce Now it wouldn't be an alternative to Game pass no matter which two additional countries it's in.

I'm not sure why people believe MS is some kind of sole provider of game streaming but I guess that's what different market leverage does to people. Yes different services have different libraries.

Aren't streamable anywhere isn't correct though. Diablo is streamable right now on Boosteroid. How much do you want to bet it won't be anymore afterwards?

You keep trying to change the subject to GeForce Now but it still doesn't refute my point there are more smartphones and tablets than PlayStations so in the event that PlayStation doesn't get a MS game after the acquisition there are still more total alternative devices out there.

It's not changing the subject. You brought up streaming to suggest that Hellblade came to more platforms and I mentioned other platforms Hellblade was available on before, GFN.

It does refute it because I don't see the relevance of suggesting that there are more phones and tablets out there than PS because

1) streaming with other services like GFN, Blacknut, Boosteroid, etc exists and already provides that service. In the case that was brought up, Hellblade, MS actively removed other streaming platforms like GFN. So suggesting it's on more platforms or devices now doesn't make sense.

2) the streaming service customer install base is currently far smaller than PS to begin with.

So anybody who wanted to play on phone or tablet could have before anyway and you are losing a bigger group of people who were interested in that established IP even when "there are more phones and tablets out there" regardless.

 

[Kagey K]

Ok, so why exclude GFN in a browser on an xbox? Not even sure how xcloud on xbox would be "more platforms" when well, you've already counted xbox as a platform, but I digress.

I'm not sure why people believe MS is some kind of sole provider of game streaming but I guess that's what different market leverage does to people. Yes different services have different libraries.

Aren't streamable anywhere isn't correct though. Diablo is streamable right now on Boosteroid. How much do you want to bet it won't be anymore afterwards?




It's not changing the subject. You brought up streaming to suggest that Hellblade came to more platforms and I mentioned other platforms Hellblade was available on before, GFN.

It does refute it because I don't see the relevance of suggesting that there are more phones and tablets out there than PS because

1) streaming with other services like GFN, Blacknut, Boosteroid, etc exists and already provides that service. In the case that was brought up, Hellblade, MS actively removed other streaming platforms like GFN. So suggesting it's on more platforms or devices now doesn't make sense.

2) the streaming service customer install base is currently far smaller than PS to begin with.

So anybody who wanted to play on phone or tablet could have before anyway and you are losing a bigger group of people who were interested in that established IP even when "there are more phones and tablets out there" regardless.

Let's not forget that Sony themselves aren't supportive of Geforce now despite releasing games on PC.

https://www.ign.com/articles/god-of-war-pulled-from-geforce-now

 

[Three]

Kagey K No shit, I wonder why. You think maybe it has something to do with that fancy PS+ Premium service they've just put out too? Unlike you I'm not here console warring and have already mentioned them removing stuff in this thread. Maybe you want to go check if GoW was playable at launch on GFN with the steam release (here's a hint, it was).

 

[jhjfss]

Unlike you I'm not here console warring

 

[phil_t98]

It is because it is the start of the extinguish phase by MSFT, where they are directly attacking a competitor's finances with nothing more than money. No talented coup with amazing games, no coup with amazing revolutionary hardware or accessories, just a straight anti-competitive monetary slugging match put down, using $70b plus marketing spend to take away - I think someone said it was - $1.6b/yr from PlayStation.

so every time Sony signs an exclusive deal or a deal to have exclusive DLC they are attacking the finances of the competitor so this is ok with you?

where are you getting this figures from?

 

[Kagey K]

Kagey K No shit, I wonder why. You think maybe it has something to do with that fancy PS+ Premium service they've just put out? Unlike you I'm not here console warring and have already mentioned them removing stuff in this thread. Maybe you want to go check if GoW was playable at launch on GFN with the steam release (here's a hint, it was).

So it's OK if Sony removes them, but not MS? That removal happened a long time before the fancy relaunch of PS Now.

You aren't here console warring?

That's some denial right there, but everyone is the hero of thier own story.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Kagey K No shit, I wonder why. You think maybe it has something to do with that fancy PS+ Premium service they've just put out too? Unlike you I'm not here console warring and have already mentioned them removing stuff in this thread. Maybe you want to go check if GoW was playable at launch on GFN with the steam release (here's a hint, it was).

And it was instantly pulled as soon as they saw xbox owners were playing it on their consoles through gfn.
Well before psn plus.

But yeah, MS are the bad guys....

 

[Kagey K]

And it was instantly pulled as soon as they saw xbox owners were playing it on their consoles through gfn.
Well before pan plus.

But yeah, MS are the bad guys....

He's not here console warring. It makes sense when Sony does it, but it's terrible if MS or other companies do.

 

[phil_t98]

He's not here console warring. It makes sense when Sony does it, but it's terrible if MS or other companies do.

that's how a lot of them come across. if Sony were buying Activision it would make perfect sense because they have a marketing deal but if Microsoft buy it then its bad for the industry

 

[Three]

So it's OK if Sony removes them, but not MS?

No, where are you getting that idea from? It's both MS and Sony's perogative what they do with their bought IPs but suggesting that games like God of war or Hellblade are on more platforms now because streaming when it's being removed from competing streaming platforms like GFN for platform holder business interests is asinine.

That removal happened a long time before the fancy relaunch of PS Now.

You aren't here console warring?

That's some denial right there, but everyone is the hero of thier own story.

What the fuck are you talking about PS+ Premium launched June 2022. God Of war was announced to be removed June 2022 and removed July 2022. Do you like talking nonsense or what?

 

[Kagey K]

that's how a lot of them come across. if Sony were buying Activision it would make perfect sense because they have a marketing deal but if Microsoft buy it then its bad for the industry

It's Organic so it's OK.

Everyone is a natural partner with Sony so everything is good. Morrowind and Xbox didn't save Bethesda 20 years ago, MS crushed them to defeat.

 

[phil_t98]

It's Organic so it's OK.

Everyone is a natural partner with Sony so everything is good. Morrowind and Xbox didn't save Bethesda 20 years ago, MS crushed them to defeat.

also not like Activision didn't have an exclusive call of duty game there system back on the 360. also because of the marketing deal and how good xbox live was compared to PS network it helped build call of duty to what it is today

 

[Kagey K]

also not like Activision didn't have an exclusive call of duty game there system back on the 360. also because of the marketing deal and how good xbox live was compared to PS network it helped build call of duty to what it is today

Stop console warring. Only object to the deal and say Sony is good

Jesus man.

 

[phil_t98]

Stop console warring. Only object to the deal and say Sony is good

Jesus man.

am I not allowed to bring up the positive number of money that gamepass is generating either?

 

[Kagey K]

am I not allowed to bring up the positive number of money that gamepass is generating either?

That's blood money, stolen from gamers who don't know.

Plus where are the profits?

 

[phil_t98]

That's blood money, stolen from gamers who don't know.

Plus where are the profits?

yeah true, I forgot we are all shareholders who want to see the profits. we only game off the profits don't we

 

[Three]

He's not here console warring. It makes sense when Sony does it, but it's terrible if MS or other companies do.

Now point to where I said "it makes sense when sony does it". I'll wait.

While you search let me show you some of my posts in this thread:

Enter new subscription platform holders paying big money for content for their sub though and there is your new loss. There is your incentive to have it be streamable only on Gamepass Ultimate, Stadia, PS+ Premium or whatever for some period of time.

I think their removal was spurred on by spending and acquisitions from multigame subscription providers like Stadia, Gamepass, PS Now/Premium etc. We are in a multigame subscription war now. I'm sure Sony will no longer provide it either and has recently removed GoW

It provided it (like xcloud beta currently) for years until multigame subscription services like Gamepass, Stadia and now PS+ Premium etc started to take off. That's when publishers now wanted to start to control what subscription based streaming services they were on.

You're a bloody buffoon

 

[Three]

And it was instantly pulled as soon as they saw xbox owners were playing it on their consoles through gfn.
Well before psn plus.

But yeah, MS are the bad guys....

Yes what's your point? I'm not the one going round pretending business deals like this are about singing Kumbaya and bringing it to more platforms when platform holders will obviously tie IPs to their platforms (less platforms) .

 

[Kagey K]

yeah true, I forgot we are all shareholders who want to see the profits. we only game off the profits don't we

Thunk of all the games bonuses Jim could get, if MS would just quit like they were supposed to.

 

[phil_t98]

Thunk of all the games bonuses Jim could get, if MS would just quit like they were supposed to.

yeah we should be putting our prices up because Sony did, did you not realise how bad an idea it is to not put the price of the console up? I mean how are they gonna make AAA games if they don't put the price up

 

[Kagey K]

Yes what's your point? I'm not the one going round pretending business deals like this are about singing Kumbaya and bringing it to more platforms when platform holders will obviously tie IPs to their platforms, less platforms.

If a game really interests you when it comes out you will find a way to play it.

Many options were presented to you in this thread, the only thing stopping you is your non warring stubborn ass.

 

[Kagey K]

yeah we should be putting our prices up because Sony did, did you not realise how bad an idea it is to not put the price of the console up? I mean how are they gonna make AAA games if they don't put the price up

For the payers.

Oops shit that was my inside voice I meant players.

Used to be for the prayers because you never knew if PSN was up when you tried to sign in. So you did a little ritual before turning it on.

 

[Three]

If a game really interests you when it comes out you will find a way to play it.

Many options were presented to you in this thread, the only thing stopping you is your non warring stubborn ass.

What are you blabbering on about now? I have no idea what you think this discussion is about but "many options presented to me" to do whatever you think it is that I want options for isn't it.

 

[Kagey K]

What are you blabbering on about now? I have no idea what you think this discussion is about but "many options presented to me" to do whatever you think it is that I want options for isn't it.

Yeah yeah, if it's not on pkaystation it's not for you.

I dont give a fuck

Move on.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Can you provide a recent example of them using the extinguish tactic?

Miguel de Icaza Leads Uproar Over Closed-Source VS Code C# Tool -- Visual Studio Magazine

'An unacceptable abuse of power from the stewards of the platform, and a betrayal of the community.'

visualstudiomagazine.com

Can we trust Microsoft with Open Source?

Programming Adventures

dusted.codes

I am sure you can find more… but .

 

[Panajev2001a]

Is that somehow necessary to validate the point I already made? I'm not sure how you are arguing against the point I made, rather than trying to undermine the person making it.

I agree, the argument you made was not even tangentially entertained, but sidestepped, ignored, and the attack came from another angle.

 

[Three]

Yeah yeah, if it's not on pkaystation it's not for you.

I dont give a fuck

Move on.

Stfu. If you didn't give a fuck why are you even quoting me with your bullshit? Get lost will you.

 

[Kagey K]

Stfu. If you didn't give a fuck why are you even quoting me with your bullshit? Get lost will you.

I can't hear you over all this warring.

Looks like you are the largest contributor to this thread with over 3 of your posts to 1 of mine

 

[phil_t98]

the links you provide the

Miguel de Icaza Leads Uproar Over Closed-Source VS Code C# Tool -- Visual Studio Magazine

'An unacceptable abuse of power from the stewards of the platform, and a betrayal of the community.'

visualstudiomagazine.com

Can we trust Microsoft with Open Source?

Programming Adventures

dusted.codes

I am sure you can find more… but .

first one wouldn't load and the second is an opinion on a situation, they said they reached out to Microsoft employees and got no comment off them but also says they didn't deny it, that doesn't mean its happening. when you work for a huge company you have to be very careful what you put on social media or in the public domain so a non answer is nothing really. if you ask how I know this, I work for the biggest company in my sector and social media posts from people high up are looked at as to not tarnish the company brand in anyway whatsoever ever

 

[Three]

I can't hear you over all this warring.

Looks like you are the largest contributor to this thread with over 3 of your posts to 1 of mine

Keep posting nonsense and I'm sure you'll catch up in no time.

 

[Kagey K]

Keep posting nonsense and I'm sure you'll catch up in no time.

Look I'm sure it's hard to be a PlayStation fan nowadays.

The brand serns to be working against you and not doing what you like, but I'm sure if you stick with them they will come back around.

If they don't it's not like family, you can drop them and forget about them.

Either way you will find what's right for you. Just don't take it out on the rest of the community because things aren't going your way.

 

[Three]

Look I'm sure it's hard to be a PlayStation fan nowadays.

The brand serns to be working against you and not doing what you like, but I'm sure if you stick with them they will come back around.

If they don't it's not like family, you can drop them and forget about them.

Either way you will find what's right for you. Just don't take it out on the rest of the community because things aren't going your way.

. I know you're upset you can't play God of War in your xbox browser or whatever but there are options available to you. I can provide you with some in this thread if you like since that's what we're doing here after all.

 

[Kagey K]

Clown. I know you're upset you can't play God of War in your xbox browser or whatever but there are options available to you. I can provide you with some in this thread if you like since that's what we're doing here after all.

I'm good.

Thanks for the offer though. I hope you look at my last post and reevaluate for your own mental health though.

 

[Three]

I'm good.

Thanks for the offer though. I hope you look at my last post and reevaluate for your own mental health though.

Thanks for your concern but my mental health is fine. It's just a little fed up with your strawman arguments that make no sense so it's throwing some back your way.