Support NeoGAF

[intheinbetween]

rofl, so, the CMA is stating Nintendo can't be taken as an example of success just because, according to them, the Switch can't run ANY CoD, so Nintendo makes millions living without CoD in their library, but since PS4/5 and XBOX can run it (lmfao) then the believe that Sony would required access on competitive terms to ABK's content in order to compete against Microsoft, the vendor on third place.

Is the CMA being serious? ABK could release a low-end version of any CoD for the Switch if they wanted, if the Switch is capable or running a version of The Witcher 3 then there shouldn't be any problem releasing a Switch version of any CoD titles. Heck even a cloud version as with other titles such as Nier.

Also, if anything this is proof of evidence on how much Sony rely on the success of CoD for profit, and the outlook of their first party studios when it comes to delivering a successful FPS

 

[PaintTinJr]

CMA is a joke. Literally.
Arguing that Nintendo is not in competition with Microsoft and Sony because they made Wii Fit? This is literally "we need stupid argument so we can continue to pretend that Call of Duty is vital to existence of platform" so they can parrot Sony's points.

Also. CMA is wrong. Switch is able to run Call of Duty games. Through cloud. Same as Guardians of the Galaxy, Hitman 3, Control and many other games on the platform. I guess that this is the way Microsoft wants to get Call of Duty on Switch after merger.

And yet, there's books on the topic like:

Blue Ocean Strategy, Expanded Edition: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant Hardcover – 20 Jan. 2015

From the title alone, does that not sound like the DS, 3DS,, Wii, WiiU and Switch's strategy to you?

 

[Darsxx82]

It is the most shocking and absurd of the CMA's writing. Who says that MS (in fact it is their intention) cannot version COD for Switch?

They simply consider Nintendo something else, a straight toy, just because then their argument in defense of Sony's position would be meaningless.

Is it that Nintendo is not subject to market changes and trends like the rest? We all know that if the Nintendo console exists today it is because it has been able to reinvent itself and adapt. But that is not a guarantee that in several years it can cease to be so and that the formula will stop working and it will have to "compete" with Playstation again.

The CMA only cares about the future and situation of Sony and not the rest, including the Xbox console. Or can Xbox console survive forever by selling less than 2:1 and not being able to reach agreements like Sony's with Thirds under the same economic conditions?

 

[Tommi84]

What do you mean it's too big to fail? Anyone remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace ?

 

[Three]

MS: "instead its incentive is to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible to encourage the major shift in consumer behaviour required for cloud gaming to succeed"

somebody should ask them why they removed all their games from Geforce Now then. the cheapest cloud provider, with people having already established libraries in Steam and EGS. I'm sure that would throw them for a loop.

 

[hemo memo]

What do you mean it's too big to fail? Anyone remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace ?

Why go that far?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Vita

 

[01011001]

 

[Bo_Hazem]

What a load of bullshit.

 

[Godot25]

And yet, there's books on the topic like:

Blue Ocean Strategy, Expanded Edition: How to Create Uncontested Market Space and Make the Competition Irrelevant Hardcover – 20 Jan. 2015

From the title alone, does that not sound like the DS, 3DS,, Wii, WiiU and Switch's strategy to you?

Pretending that Nintendo is not is same market is disingenuous. While I agree that strength of Nintendo ecosystem is different and Sony and Microsoft are more "similar" nobody in their right mind would exclude Nintendo from gaming market unless you have your agenda you want to push of course. It's like arguing that Netflix and HBO Max are not in competition, because content that is available on HBO Max is not available on Netflix, so you can't compare them.

If you buy Fortnite BP on Switch doesn't that mean that you won't buy it on PlayStation? If you buy Control on Switch, will you buy it again on Xbox? Probably not. Every dollar spent on gaming that you gave Nintendo is dollar less you could give Sony or Microsoft.

So yeah. Nintendo is relevant to overall gaming landscape. They survived years without Call of Duty just fine with their quality first-party output. Which is....same strategy that Sony employs. So why is Nintendo just fine, but Sony will not be fine without Call of Duty?

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Real competition drives the industry. Not buying established games. How does this drive competition exactly? Competition would be Microsoft creating their own ip. How does anyone gain anything from this? Activision games were already on xbox so theres no difference. Nothing new is being added. I guess console warriors like you want to see it happen so your favourite brand can have a stronger position in the market. Don't even deny it you green rat.

That can be said about almost every merger or acquisition. You even get media and telcom companies that get approved for consolidation with probably zero benefits to competition and consumers yet they go through. If these kinds of deals get approved then any can - especially for something non essential like video games.

Sure new things can happen. With MS, Activision/Blizzard games can blow out to all kinds of devices, cloud, GP, even Samsung TVs (with GP) for cheap. You might not even need a dedicated gaming device to play COD or Diablo, nor need to pay $70. That's a great benefit.

COD isnt even a big portion in overall industry sales. Also, even as part of Sony's gaming division sales, COD (from what someone posted one time as a ballpark portion) was tiny. If someone wants to dig up that detail or do new math, I think Sony's gaming division does $12 billion sales at around $3 billion profit per year. There is no way Activision games (even if all are added up) does a big portion of their $$$ per year.

The fear is that if COD disappears from PS 3 years from now when the current partnership ends, MS cuts the cord in 2026 (unknown if true), that shit loads of PS gamers bail ship for Xbox or PC, so the value of COD (+ Diablo etc..) is worth more than it's actual sales. That Activision is worth more than the sum of their parts as some gigantic halo effect on the PS gamer even though most PS gamers dont even play COD or Diablo.

This will be impossible to prove in any meaningful way.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

A trillion dollar company is trying to get sympathy by downplaying their position in the industry and the popularity of COD and Sony acts like they have nothing in their arsenal if COD goes exclusive to Xbox and they are trying to stop the Activision deal. Honest opinion, I don't think Microsoft would have had to spend all that money on major third parties if they managed their first party and leadership better.

Sure, it's difficult making a healthy competitor to COD, but maybe Sony can try to do something with the Battlefield franchise or give Killzone, Socom and Resistance and serious shot with a huge budget behind it? Yeah, potentially losing COD in 3 years will hurt, but I think Sony will still have a strong position in the industry just based off of name recognition alone.

 

[Melchiah]

I'd wager it's Sony who doesn't want Game Pass on their TVs. Every TV they sell with Game Pass adds more potential customers to their video game competitor. Samsung doesn't care - they don't make video games or video game platforms.

I imagine MS would have said if it's so, considering they've already said Sony doesn't allow GP on PS, and they'll do anything to paint the competitor in a bad light; denying gamers of choice, when they're the one doing that. Remember the FFXIV debacle?

https://www.windowscentral.com/micr...-preventing-final-fantasy-xiv-coming-xbox-one

In a roundtable discussion between a number of outlets like WCCFtech and Square Enix's Naoki Yoshida, the reason why Final Fantasy XIV hasn't landed on Xbox One was revealed. You can read Yoshida's translated statement below.

"Two months ago, I discussed with Phil Spencer. I have explained this before, but we are prepared to do cross-play at any time. To play an MMORPG, there are two regulations for Microsoft which stand in the way of making cross-play feasible. Unless these regulations are rejected, there is no meaning. Simply speaking, matchmaking first-person shooter (FPS) style games has no issues with those two regulations. If we had made an FPS game, then we would already have cross-play. One of the regulations is that players with different platforms cannot chat with each other in game. Then how do you play... The other regulation is you cannot make a community with players on a different platform. You can't form a guild, you can't enter into a link shell... So I would like to have Microsoft change their regulations. And this is not limited to Microsoft, but there are many players who only have cross-play experience with FPS games, especially with the business scene. For an MMORPG, a game where full communication is possible, regulations need to be created considering how massive an MMORPG is to have true cross-play. Final Fantasy XIV will not release cross-play without making this clear because that would only hurt the players. I think we can only try to continue having our discussions with those parties."

Yet good guy Phil claimed it's all on Sony cock-blocking them.

 

[The_Mike]

After sleeping on Sony's demand got me thinking...

They want to force Microsoft to not having a better graphical version than on PS5.

That tells me they know xbox is stronger, otherwise they wouldn't point it out like this.

How many games has Sony moneyhatted to actually that the Xbox version worse?

I'm well aware of Microsoft having done the same thing in previous generation, but that doesn't give playstation a free card to do the same.

Have never seen Sony this insecure before. I'm really happy for the industry that the market leader gets shaken a bit and starts doing something competitive.

 

[Snake29]

A trillion dollar company is trying to get sympathy by downplaying their position in the industry and the popularity of COD and Sony acts like they have nothing in their arsenal if COD goes exclusive to Xbox and they are trying to stop the Activision deal. Honest opinion, I don't think Microsoft would have had to spend all that money on major third parties if they managed their first party and leadership better.

Sure, it's difficult making a healthy competitor to COD, but maybe Sony can try to do something with the Battlefield franchise or give Killzone, Socom and Resistance and serious shot with a huge budget behind it? Yeah, potentially losing COD in 3 years will hurt, but I think Sony will still have a strong position in the industry just based off of name recognition alone.

They already doing that with Firesprite and Deviation Games.

 

[GHG]

Isn't better for us have all the abk catalog for 1$€?

 

[ZehDon]

I imagine MS would have said if it's so, considering they've already said Sony doesn't allow GP on PS, and they'll do anything to paint the competitor in a bad light; denying gamers of choice, when they're the one doing that. Remember the FFXIV debacle?

https://www.windowscentral.com/micr...-preventing-final-fantasy-xiv-coming-xbox-one



Yet good guy Phil claimed it's all on Sony cock-blocking them.

Yes, FFXIV is exactly the same as Sony not wanting its hardware to serve as a basis for its competitor's platform when there's little ability for them to monetise it. Exactly the same. Good catch.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

A trillion dollar company is trying to get sympathy by downplaying their position in the industry and the popularity of COD and Sony acts like they have nothing in their arsenal if COD goes exclusive to Xbox and they are trying to stop the Activision deal. Honest opinion, I don't think Microsoft would have had to spend all that money on major third parties if they managed their first party and leadership better.

Sure, it's difficult making a healthy competitor to COD, but maybe Sony can try to do something with the Battlefield franchise or give Killzone, Socom and Resistance and serious shot with a huge budget behind it? Yeah, potentially losing COD in 3 years will hurt, but I think Sony will still have a strong position in the industry just based off of name recognition alone.

Out of the 3 big console makers, Sony brags the most about giant selling highly rated games. I dont think Nintendo even boasts as much even though their games can sell 30 million or more copies. If any company is going to PR about giant sales, youd think Nintendo would be doing it all the time. They dont.

So it shows Sony's first party games can totally make up ground on whatever COD is. The COD deal already spans to 2025 or 2026, so it gives Sony time. Just to prove they got the time and money to compete, they even have tons of studios making GAAS games where Hulst or Ryan even stated that all they need is 1-2 of those games to succeed to cover the rest. So for Sony to give an impression if Activision goes away they are left holding the bag as dead ducks is hilarious. They just want to keep coasting along with COD deals (which they already had been since 2013).

Sony has historically also made MP games. In fact tons of them. It's their problem they failed at making those franchises successful. Some of them even got great reviews but they bailed anyway for SP focus games.

There's a big difference between opposing a deal due to survival or inability to replicate vs. opposing a deal just because they didn't bother having suitable products to fill the gaps (especially when they have made MP games in the past).

 

[Three]

After sleeping on Sony's demand got me thinking...

They want to force Microsoft to not having a better graphical version than on PS5.

That tells me they know xbox is stronger, otherwise they wouldn't point it out like this.

How many games has Sony moneyhatted to actually that the Xbox version worse?

I'm well aware of Microsoft having done the same thing in previous generation, but that doesn't give playstation a free card to do the same.

Have never seen Sony this insecure before. I'm really happy for the industry that the market leader gets shaken a bit and starts doing something competitive.

That's not what they are saying at all. They are not saying hold the xbox version back. It's saying that post acquisition MS can intentionally gimp a version they release on PS. For example, offer no raytracing on PS5. No next gen update like Hellblade:

https://www.dualshockers.com/is-hellblade-next-gen-update-available-on-ps5-what-does-it-include/#:~:text=What Does It Include?,-By Mehrdad Khayyat&text=Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice gets Ray,update on any other console.

They can break hardware interoperability to push their own platform.

 

[Melchiah]

Yes, FFXIV is exactly the same as Sony not wanting its hardware to serve as a basis for its competitor's platform when there's little ability for them to monetise it. Exactly the same. Good catch.

Swoosh! Talk about missing the point.

 

[Gudji]

MS is big and failed for 3 generations in a row so everything is possible.

 

[phil_t98]

That's not what they are saying at all. They are not saying hold the xbox version back. It's saying that post acquisition MS can intentionally gimp a version they release on PS. For example, offer no raytracing on PS5. No next gen update like Hellblade:

https://www.dualshockers.com/is-hellblade-next-gen-update-available-on-ps5-what-does-it-include/#:~:text=What Does It Include?,-By Mehrdad Khayyat&text=Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice gets Ray,update on any other console.

They can break hardware interoperability to push their own platform.

what reason would they have to do that though, it will cost money to develop a PS version of a game and they will want it to sell so there isn't really a point to gimping something you are spending on money to develop or sell

 

[Three]

what reason would they have to do that though, it will cost money to develop a PS version of a game and they will want it to sell so there isn't really a point to gimping something you are spending on money to develop or sell

I explicitly mention the reason already "to push their own platform". Same reason why Hellblade didn't get an update on PS5.

 

[ParaSeoul]

MS is big and failed for 3 generations in a row so everything is possible.

 

[phil_t98]

I explicitly mention the reason already "to push their own platform".

its all hypothetical, I don't see Minecraft gimped in anyway or the Minecraft sub games that came out being gimped compared to xbox either.

 

[Godot25]

I explicitly mention the reason already "to push their own platform".

They don't need to technically gimp PS5 version to push their own platform.

"Have Call of Duty on Game Pass day one" or "buy it for 80$ every year" is enough to push their own platform.

Casuals literally don't care about difference in resolutions or stuff like that.

Minecraft is not "gimped" on PlayStation. On contrary. PS got "VR version" of the game.

 

[kyussman]

Such nonsense,no such thing as too big to fail.....ask General Motors.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

Company with a market cap less than 5% of our own is super stronk bro, y u mad?

That market cap doesn't matter in the market segment Sony is in, as evidenced by market share.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

Watching MS trying to appear as this small indie company as if they weren't in this industry for almost 20 years is hilarious.

 

[phil_t98]

What a load of bullshit.

isn't Sony's strength its first party games we keep hearing about? how many will god of war sell when launched?

 

[GHG]

Is the CMA being serious? ABK could release a low-end version of any CoD for the Switch if they wanted, if the Switch is capable or running a version of The Witcher 3 then there shouldn't be any problem releasing a Switch version of any CoD titles. Heck even a cloud version as with other titles such as Nier.

They are basing this off what a third party publisher has told them. You know, people who actually work in the industry and have a full understanding of what would be required for such an undertaking.

A serious conversation is impossible unless people actually read the document in it's entirity instead of cutting out excerpts with the intention of creating shock value and controversy.

Maybe that's asking too much.

 

[lh032]

This deal is going to pass, but we shall see how much restriction FTC shall impose on Microsoft.

Jimbo, god bless you.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Pretending that Nintendo is not is same market is disingenuous. While I agree that strength of Nintendo ecosystem is different and Sony and Microsoft are more "similar" nobody in their right mind would exclude Nintendo from gaming market unless you have your agenda you want to push of course. It's like arguing that Netflix and HBO Max are not in competition, because content that is available on HBO Max is not available on Netflix, so you can't compare them.

If you buy Fortnite BP on Switch doesn't that mean that you won't buy it on PlayStation? If you buy Control on Switch, will you buy it again on Xbox? Probably not. Every dollar spent on gaming that you gave Nintendo is dollar less you could give Sony or Microsoft.

So yeah. Nintendo is relevant to overall gaming landscape. They survived years without Call of Duty just fine with their quality first-party output. Which is....same strategy that Sony employs. So why is Nintendo just fine, but Sony will not be fine without Call of Duty?

They haven't survived but have exited that market since the Gamecube - which they threw everything at, heavily subsidized (probably by using Rare 400m sale money) amazing first party AAA games (of the time) that still hold up today and yet sold the same tiny 20m units as the OG XBox against a +140m PS2 . And have since created their own market segment.

Regardless of what strategy PlayStation, Xbox or Activision take, Nintendo still do their own thing, their games are high production on an A or AA budget - A or AA marketing for most stuff like paper mario, pikmin, bayonetta, etc - and use hardware at least 2 generations behind Tv console cutting edge - so that doesn't invite leading edge technical staff in teams of +250 to work on their games, so even the employment opportunities they provide is inconsistent with Steam, Epic, Windows Store, Xbox and PlayStation games targeting latest techniques in AAA games. The impact the regular market has on Nintendo is the same as if they were developing for a laptop or smartphone only, because the choice is never Switch or home console because the use cases are different, even if both users were play the latest Fifa online, the best player can't play at equal performance on Switch for Esports purposes.

Even the hybrid nature makes the Switch a potential purchase for TV owners without a spare hdmi socket (or know how to use a hdmi hub) a non-issue, unlike the other consoles or a PC that need provision for being permanently connected to a TV and can be a direct choice of PS5 or Series on Tvs with just 2 or 3 hdmi ports - which is the majority in the world and when you consider most budget TVs of this ilk with very short smartapp support will also need at least 1 hdmi port reserved for a firestick/appletv/tivo type device, at best you have one or two spare.

If you don't see the difference because it doesn't suit your argument, then I think it is clear you aren't arguing in good faith on this issue.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

isn't Sony's strength its first party games we keep hearing about? how many will god of war sell when launched?

Yes, in a way. Meaning they are good to lure you into the ecosystem, then 3rd party sales and that 30% are the biggest revenue streams for any platform. Steam is 100% reliant on that for instance.

 

[GHG]

isn't Sony's strength its first party games we keep hearing about? how many will god of war sell when launched?

Return to base.

 

[oldergamer]

MS: "instead its incentive is to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible to encourage the major shift in consumer behaviour required for cloud gaming to succeed"

somebody should ask them why they removed all their games from Geforce Now then. the cheapest cloud provider, with people having already established libraries in Steam and EGS. I'm sure that would throw them for a loop.

Back with this argument again? As was said before there were other factors involved and as i said expiring contracts were a possible reason. Mentioned specifically in this article when geforce now came out of beta. Business 101 right?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/publishers-games-removed-nvidia-geforce-now/

bethesda was developing its own streaming tech could be another reason, but you cant blame Activision and all the other large publishers pulling games on a ms acquisition of bethesda. They are one of a few that still kept something available on the service.

 

[Gavon West]

MS: COD is not that important. They could probably make a COD competitor themselves if they wanted. They exaggerate the importance of Call of Duty.

So why aren't you doing it yourself? Why are you spending $70B dollars and arguing over it?

Why can't Sony spend 70 bil and buy them, or create a successful FPS IP?

This is ridiculous.

Anyway, Sony keeps this up, they'll take a huge hit regardless if the deal goes through or not. This is being built up way too much at this point.

 

[MOTM]

People who only respond via gif are really tiresome and especially sad. If you have nothing to say, keep your mouth shut yourself.

 

[Skifi28]

The deal that keeps on giving. This has been more entertaining than any game I've played this year.

 

[Three]

its all hypothetical, I don't see Minecraft gimped in anyway or the Minecraft sub games that came out being gimped compared to xbox either.

Not sure where you are getting that idea from PS got the bedrock edition of Minecraft in 2019. xbox in 2017. It had several exclusive features.

They don't need to technically gimp PS5 version to push their own platform.

"Have Call of Duty on Game Pass day one" or "buy it for 80$ every year" is enough to push their own platform.

Casuals literally don't care about difference in resolutions or stuff like that.

Minecraft is not "gimped" on PlayStation. On contrary. PS got "VR version" of the game.

It's not about whether they need to or not. It's that they can and they have already shown it. with hardware interoperability updates with Hellblade on competing systems even when one is free on GP and for sale elsewhere.

 

[oldergamer]

I imagine MS would have said if it's so, considering they've already said Sony doesn't allow GP on PS, and they'll do anything to paint the competitor in a bad light; denying gamers of choice, when they're the one doing that. Remember the FFXIV debacle?

https://www.windowscentral.com/micr...-preventing-final-fantasy-xiv-coming-xbox-one



Yet good guy Phil claimed it's all on Sony cock-blocking them.

He (phil) never claimed that they were blocked on a mmo. Lets be realistic, they were blocked on access to certain retail games.

 

[ZehDon]

Swoosh! Talk about missing the point.

The irony here is strong enough to fold spacetime.

 

[oldergamer]

Cloud being a factor in this is kinda funny as sony signed a deal with ms to use Cloud infrastructure. If there was such great concern in this area and sony is partnering with them instead of competing cloud services, that should honestly counter some of the fears of ms blocking others from competing in that area. The literally partner with thier biggest competitor in the console space.

 

[PaintTinJr]

what reason would they have to do that though, it will cost money to develop a PS version of a game and they will want it to sell so there isn't really a point to gimping something you are spending on money to develop or sell

Same reason they have been initially embracing the Java community of Minecraft after acquisition, but are making Minecraft RT a DirectX (windows native) only feature and have been pushing native PC/console versions to sell dedicated Azure hosted Minecraft servers using a non-java MC server and have even tried to entice replacing of people's Java launcher and java client game on Windows, all with a view to extinguish the original community server hosting aspect of Minecraft - on linux - to properly weaponise the IP as a "best on Windows/Xbox" - all roads lead back to Windows PC and their proprietary technologies.

 

[reksveks]

Even the hybrid nature makes the Switch a potential purchase for TV owners without a spare hdmi socket (or know how to use a hdmi hub) a non-issue, unlike the other consoles or a PC that need provision for being permanently connected to a TV and can be a direct choice of PS5 or Series on Tvs with just 2 or 3 hdmi ports - which is the majority in the world and when you consider most budget TVs of this ilk with very short smartapp support will also need at least 1 hdmi port reserved for a firestick/appletv/tivo type device, at best you have one or two spare.

This is some weird tangent.

Separately not sure I buy the argument that the Switch is not a player in the console gaming market especially if the argument is about the power of the switch or the technical difficulties of developing for it.

The analysis of the market share of games/content and player base should bare that out.

I also think EA does release a legacy edition for the switch so this argument that ABK couldn't release a version of COD (then we are going to go down the rabbit hole if that counts) feels a bit of a stretch.

 

[GHG]

He never claimed that they were blocked on a mmo. Lets be realistic, they were blocked on access to certain retail games.

Xbox Head Discusses Why Final Fantasy 14 is Not on Xbox One

"It's not something I can explicitly talk to."

me.ign.com

Square Enix's reborn MMO Final Fantasy XIV has been available on PlayStation 4 for some time now, but no announcement has been made regarding whether or not it will eventually come to the Xbox One.

Unfortunately, it does not appear the game will be headed to the Microsoft platform any time soon. Speaking with IGN, Xbox head Phil Spencer explained this is due to business and platform exclusivity.

"It's business," he said, adding he couldn't speak too candidly about the matter. "As I've grow in this role, and I've tried to learn the third-party exclusivity thing - and you see us doing less of it now - [I've found] it's not something I'm a huge fan of."

"Different kind of deals happen, and I know that's part of this busienss, and maybe it'll be my failing in the end," he says, laughing. "But it's not something I specifically embrace with any deal that's out there, whether it's something else. It's just not something I can explicitly talk to."

 

[xHunter]

CMA is a joke. Literally.
Arguing that Nintendo is not in competition with Microsoft and Sony because they made Wii Fit? This is literally "we need stupid argument so we can continue to pretend that Call of Duty is vital to existence of platform" so they can parrot Sony's points.

Also. CMA is wrong. Switch is able to run Call of Duty games. Through cloud. Same as Guardians of the Galaxy, Hitman 3, Control and many other games on the platform. I guess that this is the way Microsoft wants to get Call of Duty on Switch after merger.

If you actually took your time to read the pdf you would come to the conclusion that most third partys suggested that Nintendo is not in competition with the other two:

Also Microsofts internal documents suggest that they dont view Nintendo as a real competitor:

So no they didnt just say Nintendo is not a competitor because they made Wii Fit.

 

[Godot25]

Not sure where you are getting that idea from PS got the bedrock edition of Minecraft in 2019. xbox in 2017. It had several exclusive features.


It's not about whether they need to or not. It's that they can and they have already shown it. with hardware interoperability updates with Hellblade on competing systems even when one is free on GP and for sale elsewhere.

What? They did not published next-gen upgrade for Hellblade. Not gimped OG version of the game. They did not published native PS5 version of Psychonauts 2 because crowdfunding campaign was for PS4 version so there was no incentive for Microsoft to push for PS5 native version of the game. Basically, game was not released on PlayStation 5. They did not "gimped" Psychonatus 2. If there was no promise for PS4 version of Psychonauts 2 in Fig campaign, game would not be released on PlayStation at all.

Deathloop (which is most recent example) has complete feature and content parity. Same for Minecraft Dungeons. And same will be probably the case with Minecraft Legends.

 

[Three]

Back with this argument again? As was said before there were other factors involved and as i said expiring contracts were a possible reason. Mentioned specifically in this article when geforce now came out of beta. Business 101 right?

https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/publishers-games-removed-nvidia-geforce-now/

bethesda was developing its own streaming tech could be another reason, but you cant blame Activision and all the other large publishers pulling games on a ms acquisition of bethesda. They are one of a few that still kept something available on the service.

I'll ask again, if your aim is "to encourage the widespread adoption of cloud gaming technologies by as many providers as possible"

why would you remove it? Your hypothetical reasons aren't ones that refute this. If it's contract, renew. if it's to introduce your own competing service to which you make those games exclusive then that is not your aim.

 

[PaintTinJr]

This is some weird tangent.

Separately not sure I buy the argument that the Switch is not a player in the console gaming market especially if the argument is about the power of the switch or the technical difficulties of developing for it.

The analysis of the market share of games/content and player base should bare that out.

I also think EA does release a legacy edition for the switch so this argument that ABK couldn't release a version of COD (then we are going to go down the rabbit hole if that counts) feels a bit of a stretch.

It isn't whether they do, or can, but whether it is an afterthought to their game development strategy to break even and profit from the "games market".

They could just as easily do a version for the PS Vita, DS, 3DS or Wii and WiiU too, but none of them are important to the primary competing market for the game, and neither is the switch versions

 

[M1chl]

After all UK can now take any buck they can get.