They did bro. Lol. Don't you remember?
You've missed the point, it's a concern to regulators. Nobody is saying they can't bring competing products but they are disadvantaged and one of their endeavours failed and was rebranded.
There's a difference between owning a publisher/developer and a marketing deal. You're running in circles and you have no point at all.
Suggesting? I think you are mistaken me. The comment I did was in reference of your comment
You keep repeating the same thing over and over again. The difference is obvious. You're asking questions that make no sense.
I think you forget with 'all of blizzards ips' they still only made 2.8 billion.
It has nothing to do with the conversation. They make marketing deals and buy studios. You have more control over what goes on when you buy a studio versus a marketing deal.
Of course it makes sense. Gamepass needs available customers. No way it succeeds on xbox alone unless xbox starts selling 100+ million consoles which is unlikely.
I've been playing Gamepass for the last two weeks and my Xbox is packed up in storage 2,000 miles away. You don't need a Xbox for it.
True, but is it better to play it on a PS5 through an Ethernet cable or on a tablet using wifi? For me wired has always been best by a long distance.
And I'm sure you'd have gamepass if you didn't hav3 an xbox too right?
I have never owned an Xbox (or playstation for that matter) and have gamepass. MS wants gamepass on PlayStation like they want it on TVs or Rokus or Fire TVs or on Switch. They want it available as many places as can support it.
Thanks for your input captain obvious. As you could clearly tell I was responding directly to manabyte not speaking in general terms.
I'm not playing on PC. I'm playing SoT, Scorn, Infinite, and Pc stuff like the Darktide beta (through GeForce Now) on my MBP.
You're obviously being incredibly reductive. That's exactly what they are saying, it would make it difficult for companies like Nintendo and Sony to compete in cloud gaming because they are out of position. That's what Phil was saying too that those companies are not competitors going forward. Suggesting the now dead PSNow of all things competes is like saying Windows Phone is a competing product with Android and that the current US vs Google antitrust case should be thrown out because they've lost the plot.If the regulators are worrying about ensuring that no company can ever release a failed product or that no corporation can ever cultivate an advantage at any time, they've lost the plot. Sony basically shouldn't be allowed to continue operating at that point, their success has disadvantaged the competition.
The issue should be more about whether or not MS would gain an advantage that makes it difficult/impossible for meaningful competition to exist. When it comes to cloud gaming that's a resounding no, because PS+ Premium already competes with GP/Xcloud. MS doing a better job of selling their service earlier on doesn't have much to do with MS's Azure business.
Thanks regulators for being the ever present, watchful eye protecting competition and consumers rights to essential input Call of Duty.This commercial is running during the NFL games today. PS Exclusive content locked to the platform until Oct 27, 2023.
This commercial is running during the NFL games today. PS Exclusive content locked to the platform until Oct 27, 2023.
As I wrote earlier:
They aren't even hiding it lol.
Does this mean everything Xbox Fanboys have been saying over the past several years has been nonsense?
Despite the appearance of the Series X, "Xbox fans" are not a monolith
Let me give you what you want so we can all move on.
There are already tens of millions of Xbox One consoles and PC's that Gamepass works with.
Downplaying their posts isn't going to work. I'm also not talking about the OP post on the thread, but how many Xbox fanboys agreed with it.
If windows phone is a failure and Google has Android that's on MS. Edge can't compete with Chrome because they use Android that's on MS failures. If MS doesn't have its own youtube and failed with Mixer that's on them, Google can restrict access to windows phone or any OS.
Really? You think that's what the issue is?
If MS was arguing against a Sony move because Sony sold more consoles that would be equally ridiculous, unless the move further reduced competition in consoles directly (they are trying to buy Nintendo). That's on MS for not selling more units.
What makes you think it doesn't? I've yet to see MS post the profit numbers for GP, they seem to love posting just the revenue numbers though.
