Support NeoGAF

[Three]

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.

How could they retroactively gimp an already released game? The point is that they can release inferior versions thereafter and poor hardware interoperability and use the excuse you are using "No incentive" for comparable versions on PS. Deathloop I'm not sure why it's even being brought up. It was before the acquisition and Sony had a contract for it which I'm sure mentions content and feature parity like most of their contracts:

"each version of the game available on PlayStation platforms [must] maintain content, feature, and technical parity (subject to any material platform limitations) with any equivalent version of the game or DLC released on any other competitive platform or PC/mobile platform".

 

[oldergamer]

The cma has some really odd considerations. Ms already stated that the planned to release cod on more platforms mobile switch and streaming

 

[reksveks]

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

Where examples of Fifa and Apex will be interesting. They have done that analysis and come to different answers. This seems to be a choice that ABK has made and not the 'market'. This is where the market definition will be important.

 

[Darsxx82]

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?

The 70B is not just for paying COD. In fact, its main interest goes far beyond an IP that MS will continue to release on Playstation for at least a generation as well.

You point out an alleged act of dishonesty and so you are just as dishonest...

 

[Godot25]

How could they retroactively gimp an already released game? The point is that they can release inferior versions thereafter and poor hardware interoperability and use the excuse you are using "No incentive" for comparable versions on PS. Deathloop I'm not sure why it's even being brought up. It was before the acquisition and Sony had a contract for it which I'm sure mentions content and feature parity like most of their contracts:


"each version of the game available on PlayStation platforms [must] maintain content, feature, and technical parity (subject to any material platform limitations) with any equivalent version of the game or DLC released on any other competitive platform or PC/mobile platform".

So why has Minecraft Dungeons on PlayStation complete feature and content parity if Microsoft wants to push their own version? Minecraft is after all, one of the most recognizable IP's on the market. So perfect opportunity for Microsoft, right?

You can't argue (same applies for Sony) that Microsoft will gimp PS versions of Call of Duty games without proof that they have done it in the past. Which they did not. Not releasing "next-gen" patch for old game is not gimping PlayStation version.

Also, Deathloop. Geee I wonder, why game does not include FSR 2.0 on Xbox despite fact that PC version has it and Xbox having official support for FSR 2.0. Something something "content, feature and technical parity"?

 

[StueyDuck]

I am rooting for which ever regulator puts a serious stop to large and major M&As, set a precedent now while the real evil companies are creeping in like Tencent

 

[Melchiah]

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

He claimed it was due to an exclusivity deal back then, and the narrative stuck with the general populace, eventhough it was all due to their own restrictions on crossplay.

The irony here is strong enough to fold spacetime.

Yes, the irony of doubling down on not getting the point; when there are precedents of hypocritical claims to support the current narrative, you shouldn't take anything at face value. Another example being, when they started to champion for crossplay at their lowest popularity, when they needed it, after being against it at their highest popularity, when they didn't need it. Painting the competitor, who had supported crossplay with PC for years, as the bad guy. Not to mention, the parity clause, which they also enforced during the triumphant 360 years.

 

[hemo memo]

I am rooting for which ever regulator puts a serious stop to large and major M&As, set a precedent now while the real evil companies are creeping in like Tencent

So it is okay for Hollywood but not gaming?

 

[StueyDuck]

So it is okay for Hollywood but not gaming?

what a weird response. when did i say "HOllYWOoD Is AMaZInG buT GaMIng BAD"

 

[Tommi84]

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

Vita was never BIG (as much as I adore the console though).

Myspace on the other hand?

In mid-2007, MySpace was the largest social-networking site in every European country where it had created a local presence

 

[Three]

So why has Minecraft Dungeons on PlayStation complete feature and content parity if Microsoft wants to push their own version? Minecraft is after all, one of the most recognizable IP's on the market. So perfect opportunity for Microsoft, right?

You can't argue (same applies for Sony) that Microsoft will gimp PS versions of Call of Duty games without proof that they have done it in the past. Which they did not. Not releasing "next-gen" patch for old game is not gimping PlayStation version.

Also, Deathloop. Geee I wonder, why game does not include FSR 2.0 on Xbox despite fact that PC version has it and Xbox having official support for FSR 2.0. Something something "content, feature and technical parity"?

You can't honestly be saying that MS has no incentive to gimp a version of their own game on a competing platform while suggesting Sony gimped a third party game with a contract. Please tell me this is you trolling.

I gave you evidence already. Minecraft Bedrock release did not come to playstation it was xbox exclusive for years. Psychonauts 2 released when PS5 was out, did not have PS5 support, no hdr, no 4k. Hellblade 1 despite selling more on PS did not get the raytracing and 4k update for PS5. What more do you want?

I only mentioned that the statement to regulators was a real possibility that MS may release a lesser version on PS post aquisition. It doesn't mean that they 100% will do it but that the possibility and incentive is there and they have done it.

 

[RoboFu]

I have not cared about this up until now as Sony has become a whiny little hypocritical bitch.

 

[hemo memo]

what a weird response. when did i say "HOllYWOoD Is AMaZInG buT GaMIng BAD"

Funny how if the roles were changed we wouldn't get as much childish resistance to this buy out. They didn't buy Nintendo for god sake.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Where examples of Fifa and Apex will be interesting. They have done that analysis and come to different answers. This seems to be a choice that ABK has made and not the 'market'. This is where the market definition will be important.

Screen size in portable mode makes even competing in MK8D against TV users of similar skill a huge disadvantage, so cross-play competitively in something like Fifa even using TV with switch at low resolution is not part of the same market, but just a secondary device method of selling existing console players more MTX when on the move, like the smartphone versions.

The team sizes working on Switch SKUs of games is much smaller than the traditional console/PC market versions, that's a given, isn't it? Most multi-plat games will not be designed for Switch or smartphone, but will be merely reduced versions for secondary revenue.

 

[StueyDuck]

Funny how if the roles were changed we wouldn't get as much childish resistance to this buy out. They didn't buy Nintendo for god sake.

I still don't know what sort of crack your sniffing here.

you are reading sentences that aren't there mate, take a break.

 

[winjer]

Through MS history, there have been many companies that were dominant in their fields, but got run over by MS schemes.
There is a reason why MS spent decades in courts because of it's mal-practices in the market.
If Sony is not careful, they will be next.

 

[Frank Horrigan]

Funny, the press were saying the exact opposite in 2011 and 2012. That there would be no PS4, that Sony was bankrupt yada yada yada.

Anyway, this is pretty pathetic behaviour from Microsoft. Especially considering that they're crying foul while being one of the biggest companies on the planet.

They are desperately trying to keep this about MS vs Sony, when anyone who takes an objective look at the industry right now, can see this is about Microsoft trying to; a) change the landscape of the industry for the worse, and B) trying to move the industry to a smartphone platform at the cost of consoles.

 

[Fess]

It's hilarious, but also tiring at this point TBH. It feels like one long, extended VH1 celebrity drama reality show or some crap like that, I don't know how much more I can take xD.

And if it's true Sony are holding off on certain announcements or moves simply due to the ongoings of the acquisition, then that's just even more frustrating. I know this may sound extreme but I feel this acquisition is holding the industry hostage.

But yeah, you're right both companies have reasons for saying what they're saying; MS ironically making themselves look bad, Sony trying to make themselves look weak, all over COD. It's wild.

It's a clown show, that's what it is, and we're all here to watch them make fools of themselves. It's more interesting to watch my kids fight over toys, they can at least come to an agreement and play together at the end.

 

[T-Cake]

I have not cared about this up until now as Sony has become a whiny little hypocritical bitch.

And frankly, I wish they would get a massive wakeup call. The hatred I have for Jimbo Ryan and his pathetic posse is now making my blood boil. It's totally irrational! And I'm such a hypocrite. I might not ever buy another PlayStation again but I'm not skipping their PC games on Steam.

 

[Team Andromeda]

Nothing is too big to fail. Playstation has failed before.

When? The PS Vita was Playstaion only poor seller in Europe

 

[Godot25]

You can't honestly be saying that MS has no incentive to gimp a version of their own game on a competing platform while suggesting Sony gimped a third party game with a contract. Please tell me this is you trolling.

I gave you evidence already. Minecraft Bedrock release did not come to playstation it was xbox exclusive for years. Psychonauts 2 released when PS5 was out, did not have PS5 support. Hellblade 1 despite selling more on PS did not get the raytracing and 4k update for PS5. What more do you want?

I only mentioned that the statement to regulators was a real possibility that MS may release a lesser version on PS post aquisition. It doesn't mean that they 100% will do it but it's that the possibility and incentive is there and they have done it.

Again
Minecraft Bedrock was not on PlayStation because Sony was not willing to allow for crossplay without their stupid "cross-play tax." Not because Microsoft wanted to gimp it. It's basically - Sony is greedy.
Psychonauts 2 IS NOT ON PLAYSTATION 5. There is no native PS5 version of the game, so comparing Series X version with PS4 version in backwards compatibility to "prove your point" is pretty dishonest take.
Hellblade was an old game that got patched for Series X/S a PC. But they did not actively gimp PS4 version of the game.

Of course, you ignored Minecraft Dungeons. But whatever. We will see with Minecraft Legends if Microsoft will "gimp" PS5 version of that game.

So again. No, Microsoft don't need to "gimp" COD on PlayStation. I can see them ignoring haptic feedback/adaptive triggers and bullshit like that for PS5 version, but that's about it. Game Pass is enough of an argument to push your platform.

 

[GHG]

Funny, the press were saying the exact opposite in 2011 and 2012. That there would be no PS4, that Sony was bankrupt yada yada yada.

Anyway, this is pretty pathetic behaviour from Microsoft. Especially considering that they're crying foul while being one of the biggest companies on the planet.

They are desperately trying to keep this about MS vs Sony, when anyone who takes an objective look at the industry right now, can see this is about Microsoft trying to; a) change the landscape of the industry for the worse, and B) trying to move the industry to a smartphone platform at the cost of consoles.

Well Microsoft declared themselves as losers of the "console wars" to the CMA and that's why they were forced to pivot. And yes, they actually used the words "console wars" when in communication with them:

 

[Three]

The 70B is not just for paying COD. In fact, its main interest goes far beyond an IP that MS will continue to release on Playstation for at least a generation as well.

You point out an alleged act of dishonesty and so you are just as dishonest...

If COD wasn't a major part of it they could buy whatever part you think is more important. King? COD is just as important to them and their cloud gaming plans. If it weren't they could easily have made a proposal with commitments but they are fighting it.

 

[reksveks]

Screen size in portable mode makes even competing in MK8D against TV users of similar skill a huge disadvantage, so cross-play competitively in something like Fifa even using TV with switch at low resolution is not part of the same market, but just a secondary device method of selling existing console players more MTX when on the move, like the smartphone versions.

The team sizes working on Switch SKUs of games is much smaller than the traditional console/PC market versions, that's a given, isn't it? Most multi-plat games will not be designed for Switch or smartphone, but will be merely reduced versions for secondary revenue.

Again this feels like a very weird tangent. The thing that regulators will look at is whether the Switch is an alternative for consumers, they aren't going to look at resolution difference or difference in monetization between platforms.

This things that you highlight may influence consumers which then may influence the producers but they aren't a case for an argument.

About to jump into a little marathon of watching 4 films so might be a while since I can respond

 

[Three]

Again
Minecraft Bedrock was not on PlayStation because Sony was not willing to allow for crossplay without their stupid "cross-play tax." Not because Microsoft wanted to gimp it. It's basically - Sony is greedy.
Psychonauts 2 IS NOT ON PLAYSTATION 5. There is no native PS5 version of the game, so comparing Series X version with PS4 version in backwards compatibility to "prove your point" is pretty dishonest take.
Hellblade was an old game that got patched for Series X/S a PC. But they did not actively gimp PS4 version of the game.

Of course, you ignored Minecraft Dungeons. But whatever. We will see with Minecraft Legends if Microsoft will "gimp" PS5 version of that game.

So again. No, Microsoft don't need to "gimp" COD on PlayStation. I can see them ignoring haptic feedback/adaptive triggers and bullshit like that for PS5 version, but that's about it. Game Pass is enough of an argument to push your platform.

And each one has an excuse I see. Can you tell me why crossplay on Bedrock for PS was a necessity for an engine update and features? Games released with crossplay blocked before without a problem.
It wasn't a necessity for bedrock, they used it as a way of causing both bad PR to Sony for their CP drive and preventing a release on PS. Doesn't matter though if you think xbox can't influence content and features post acquisition, I'm sure you will have an excuse when that happens too.

 

[Flutta]

What a load of BS. Imagine believing anything these goons say. If the regulators can't "see" what is happening here then they should just close shop. What's the point in having them in the first place….bunch of corrupt institutions running the world pretening they care about law and order.

Also Sony needs to wake up and stop relying so much on 3party software.

 

[Frank Horrigan]

Well Microsoft declared themselves as losers of the "console wars" to the CMA and that's why they were forced to pivot. And yes, they actually used the words "console wars" when in communication with them:

This is what i despise about current day Microsoft. They've given up trying to be competitive, or no longer have the ability to be competitive, so they're trying to change what the industry is, so that they can compete in their way. Never mind the detrimental effects to the industry, or the shitty practices which will be pushed upon the players, Microsoft only care about winning.

And the sad thing is, when microsoft were competitive from 2001 - 2008, they pumped out some amazing games. The OG Xbox is still one of the best consoles of all time and the games they launched were incredibly unique, fun and risky.

I wish people would stop propping up modern day Microsoft, let them fail so that they go back to a time when they dominated the landscape through talent and passion. Though I do wonder if Microsoft's' modern-day demographic were even born when the OG Xbox came out.

 

[Godot25]

And each one has an excuse I see. Can you tell me why crossplay on Bedrock for PS was a necessity for an engine update and features? Games released with crossplay blocked before without a problem.
It wasn't a necessity for bedrock, they used it as a way of causing both bad PR to Sony for their CP drive and preventing a release on PS. Doesn't matter though if you think xbox can't influence content and features post acquisition, I'm sure you will have an excuse when that happens too.

I would not argue against fact that Microsoft is using Minecraft to get what they want. It's pretty logical tbh. Because whole concept of cross-play tax is inherently anti-competitive and Sony is using it because of their position on the market.
But reasoning is important. Context is important. Microsoft said "we will give you Bedrock, no problem with content and technical parity and even with VR version of the game, but we want it to support crossplay without your stupid fees." Not: "We will not give you Bedrock for X amount of time because we want to show that Xbox version is better."

Same for Psychonauts 2. They did PS4 version, because they were obliged to make it. They did not make a PS5 version because they were not obliged to do it. Not because "we want to show Xbox version is better."

Of course Microsoft will use Call of Duty IP in negotiations with Sony in future as a lever. There is no doubt about that. Same as Sony forced developers to pay a cross-play tax because of their position on the market. Same as Epic threatened to pull Fortnite out of PS because Sony was not willing to allow crossplay. That's why Microsoft gave Sony assurance to release COD for additional three years. So when contract is up, and Microsoft would see something from Sony they don't like, they would say "Get rid of it or no Call of Duty."

But to pretend that somehow new COD games on PlayStation will be technically inferior is stupid and baseless. Proof is Minecraft Dungeons, proof will be Minecraft Legends next year.

Microsoft had every chance to make some content for Minecraft timed exclusive or permanently exclusive. They could make "extra exclusive level" for Psychonauts 2. They could make extra levels for Minecraft Dungeons. They did not do it. I wonder why...

 

[Zok310]

MS is not in the position they are in now with Xbox because of Sony, they in that position because of themself.
MS, while in a leading position at the start of last gen, forfeited that position by being greedy and hostile towards gamers when they had a clear lead ahead of Sony.
CMA, EU and FTC need to block this sale because even Ray Charles can see what MS will do if they are allowed to have all these ip under Xbox.

 

[Darsxx82]

If COD wasn't a major part of it they could buy whatever part you think is more important. King?

It is an important reason there is no doubt, that it is the only reason to pay 70B as you, dishonestly, implied is very different.

COD is just as important to them and their cloud gaming plans. If it weren't they could easily have made a proposal with commitments but they are fighting it.

What greater proposal than to ensure the release of COD and content parity on PS for an entire generation at least?

The value and potential of IPs are not eternal and it is logical not to accept agreements in perpetuity. Sony doesn't do it, Act doesn't do it, EA doesn't do it... much less would it be smart and logical for MS to do it just because a Commission thinks it's good for market competitiveness. Much less when the judicial route in the courts is still there.

 

[onnextflix5]

Looks like ms will have give some concessions to get this through, I wonder what they will be.

 

[Three]

It is an important reason there is no doubt, that it is the only reason to pay 70B as you, dishonestly, implied is very different.


What greater proposal than to ensure the release of COD and content parity on PS for an entire generation at least?

The value and potential of IPs are not eternal and it is logical not to accept agreements in perpetuity. Sony doesn't do it, Act doesn't do it, EA doesn't do it... much less would it be smart and logical for MS to do it just because a Commission thinks it's good for market competitiveness. Much less when the judicial route in the courts is still there.

I don't know why you keep trying to push this "dishonesty" angle but I don't know what valuation MS has given the COD franchise in particular do I? The point is that MS are spending big buying the COD IP while simultaneously trying to downplay its importance and pretend it can be easily replicated.

They never made a proposal to the CMA. If your intention wasn't to fight to remove it you wouldn't argue with points like this:

"[The idea that the market leader] could be foreclosed by the third largest provider as a result of losing access to one title is not credible," Microsoft said in a statement.

While Microsoft didn't share figures, the company says that if every Call of Duty player on PlayStation's consoles switched to Xbox, "the PlayStation gamer base remaining would be significantly larger than Xbox."


You would say "we recognise the importance of this title which is why we have made a commitment to release on PS for the foreseeable future". Instead they are very clearly trying to argue over its removal.

 

[Three]

Same for Psychonauts 2. They did PS4 version, because they were obliged to make it. They did not make a PS5 version because they were not obliged to do it. Not because "we want to show Xbox version is better."

You know this doesn't help your case, right?
The idea that they didn't do a PS5 version because they weren't obliged to doesn't say anything other than what might happen with COD (Psychonauts 2 did PS5 specific patches for the PS4 version) .

If they are "obliged" to do a COD game release but "not obliged" to provide that COD warzone raytracing update on PS5/Pro/PS6 what's the difference? It's gimped on competing platforms regardless is it not? whether they are not obliged doesn't mean anything. It's all the more reason why they should be 'obliged'.

 

[phaedrus]

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

 

[Clear]

You really have to laugh, on one hand they plead "we so small", and on the other throw billions around like candy in order to get an advantage on the competition!

 

[Godot25]

You know this doesn't help your case, right?
The idea that they didn't do a PS5 version because they weren't obliged to doesn't say anything other than what might happen with COD (Psychonauts 2 did PS5 specific patches for the PS4 version) .

If they are "obliged" to do a COD game release but "not obliged" to provide that COD warzone raytracing update on PS5/Pro/PS6 what's the difference? It's gimped on competing platforms regardless is it not? whether they are not obliged doesn't mean anything. It's more the reason why they should be 'obliged'.

Ehh nope.

Spencer confirmed the commitment in a statement to the Verge: "In January, we provided a signed agreement to Sony to guarantee Call of Duty on PlayStation, with feature and content parity, for at least several more years beyond the current Sony contract, an offer that goes well beyond typical gaming industry agreements."

So. Again. Nope.

Psychonauts 2 is "one in million" case. Game was on PS4 only because Double Fine promised it with Fig campaign before buyout. Without it game would not be released on Sony's consoles at all. And if PS5 was not backwards compatible, game would not be playable there at all. Because there was no promise for PS5 version of the game. Microsoft did, what they always do in those cases. Honor the contract/promise. Nothing more, nothing less.

And please. Can I laugh at the notion that niche games like Psychonauts 2 and Hellblade was used by Microsoft to somehow forced PlayStation gamers to switch to Xbox? Because it's pretty funny if you think that. Especially when they had more opportunities to "do the damage" in other ways and they did not do it.

 

[Darsxx82]

I don't know why you keep trying to push this "dishonesty" angle but I don't know what valuation MS has given the COD franchise in particular do I?

Dishonest is wanting to censor MS for pretending to play down the COD IP and then wanting to make believe that the 70B were paid mainly only for COD when that price is dictated by much more. How much would the IP of COD be worth while maintaining its multiplatformity for at least one generation if it were purchased separately? I'm telling you that possibly MS wouldn't even be interested in making an offer and yet that's their proposal. It tells me much more that COD is not the main reason but one more to pay those 70B.

The point is that MS are spending big buying the COD IP while simultaneously trying to downplay its importance and pretend it can be easily replicated.

I don't see where MS is downplaying importance of COD Ip, on the contrary when it commits to its multiplatformity (it only does it with COD), respect parity for a generation... It's the opposite, it is giving it social importance.

Another different thing is that MS understands that SONY/PlayStation can perfectly continue to compete, can adapt and still maintain its position as market leader without having COD (which is not even the case). And that MS is surprised that the CMA only has concerns about the effects on Sony and not the rest of the agents. The fact of denying Nintendo as an example is incomprehensible when it is and has always been subject to the same trends and changes in the market.

 

[Cyborg]

Too big to fail you say?

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

You really have to laugh, on one hand they plead "we so small", and on the other throw billions around like candy in order to get an advantage on the competition!

On one hand Sony are the unstoppable market leader with no comparison to their first party output and dominance and on the other they're a house of cards that without COD will fall into a pile of ashes.

 

[Three]

Ehh nope.



So. Again. Nope.

Psychonauts 2 is "one in million" case. Game was on PS4 only because Double Fine promised it with Fig campaign before buyout. Without it game would not be released on Sony's consoles at all. And if PS5 was not backwards compatible, game would not be playable there at all. Because there was no promise for PS5 version of the game. Microsoft did, what they always do in those cases. Honor the contract/promise. Nothing more, nothing less.

And please. Can I laugh at the notion that niche games like Psychonauts 2 and Hellblade was used by Microsoft to somehow forced PlayStation gamers to switch to Xbox? Because it's pretty funny if you think that. Especially when they had more opportunities to "do the damage" in other ways and they did not do it.

Please tell me what good is "Several more years" when I mention possible inferior versions of CoD or withholding updates to COD warzone on PS5/PS5 pro/PS6 without an obligation?

There is a difference to suggesting that something is a possibility and that somebody would never do something unless obliged. The signed agreement would be an obligation again, one they used to try and get the deal through. After that all bets are off again. They aren't 'obliged' agained just like they weren't for Psychonauts. Nobody was saying psychonauts or Hellblade is used to force significant amounts of people to do anything. Only showing that hardware interoperability was broken with the purchase. Same with Minecraft too, even if you think the reasons are valid.

 

[Kilau]

MS arguing their case.

While sitting on a trillion plus package.

 

[Three]

I don't see where MS is downplaying importance of COD Ip, on the contrary when it commits to its multiplatformity (it only does it with COD), respect parity for a generation... It's the opposite, it is giving it social importance.

You dont? They've been doing it throughout:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/08/03/call...nique-or-a-must-have-says-microsoft-17118292/

Might want to tell The Metro that it isn't £50B either and give them the exact figure they should have used.

 

[ReBurn]

Well Microsoft declared themselves as losers of the "console wars" to the CMA and that's why they were forced to pivot. And yes, they actually used the words "console wars" when in communication with them:

NeoGAF had to place a sticky post at the top of their forum to to tell grown adults to stop being console warriors. There are lots of people here every day who are still arguing that the company that sells the most consoles is the winner in the console war. Why does it sound odd that Microsoft would say this when grown people say it here every day?

it's clear that Microsoft is trying to change the market dynamic to make the number of consoles sold less relevant. It's an entirely accurate statement.

 

[Arioco]

Too big to fail you say?

Good example, very fitting, MS bought it too and ruined it like it was RareSoft. xD

How MS got Nokia to make only Windows phones when Android was clearly a better option is beyond me. Nokia had that kind of deal with MS even before being bought. That completely destroyed Nokia.

 

[adamsapple]

Y'all we have an OT for all this !

 

[GHG]

Too big to fail you say?

They even ended up purchasing them just to make sure they were dead and then inadvertently ended up killing their own phone business as a result.

NeoGAF had to place a sticky post at the top of their forum to to tell grown adults to stop being console warriors. There are lots of people here every day who are still arguing that the company that sells the most consoles is the winner in the console war. Why does it sound odd that Microsoft would say this when grown people say it here every day?

it's clear that Microsoft is trying to change the market dynamic to make the number of consoles sold less relevant. It's an entirely accurate statement.

If I wanted to be taken seriously by a regulatory authority I wouldn't refer to my competitive environment as a "war", but that's just me.

 

[//DEVIL//]

Instead of just banking 100% of the profits from their own offerings without having to compete in their own ecosystem.

They are doing that. But they are making zero $ from MS games like forza halo gears and all the other MS first party games .

If They accept xcloud for MS games only and not third party, this way they will get the cut of whatever % they agree on . As long as the game is not on the PSN store, what is the problem ?

I am not saying this is the solution. It's just an idea and it could be not a great one . But there is always a solution. Sony acted cocky and they are not happy now ? Okay !

 

[Zok310]

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

Strongly agree. At this point, unless you a paid member you should not be able to post gifs.

 

[ReBurn]

If I wanted to be taken seriously by a regulatory authority I wouldn't refer to my competitive environment as a "war", but that's just me.

This entire thing with the CMA is another battle in that same "war." The nomenclature around console competition has existed since the first consoles. It's not an odd statement at all. Companies battle for market share every day. Companies gain power and people lose their livelihood. It's very much like war in many level, just in most countries people don't die because of it.

 

[Umbasaborne]

Maybe microsoft should, i dont know, release some games and try to improve their market position. What im saying is that there is a path for microsoft to improve their position without buying one of the biggest 3rd party publishers around. Also, microsoft seems to have struggled to manage their game studios over the years, and output consistency has suffered as a result, if microsoft mismanages say infinity ward, or treyarch, does that suddenly mean cod games take much longer to release?