Support NeoGAF

[bender]

how is that?

I'm not sure I can put it in a way you'd understand. My posts about Insomniac's engines was pretty easy to understand. And you are also working on the broken premise that Insomniac owed anything more to Microsoft than the game that was delivered.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I'm not sure I can put it in a way you'd understand. My posts about Insomniac's engines was pretty easy to understand. And you are also working on the broken premise that Insomniac owed anything more to Microsoft than the game that was delivered.

You just fell for his "modus operandi".

 

[bender]

You just fell for his "modus operandi".

 

[FalsettoVibe]

MS funded insomniac, which allowed them to make that engine for Sunset overdrive. without their investment, doubt Insomniac would have had that engine.
So Sony got the better result from MS investment.
Edit: Insomniac had the engine already. MS investment allowed them to advance it.

You're getting way too hung up on MS helping fund Insomniac while developing Sunset Overdrive. It literally does not matter.
In the end, Sony offered a price(what they thought Insomniac was worth as a whole) and Insomniac agreed. MS could have done the same.

 

[feynoob]

You're getting way too hung up on MS helping fund Insomniac while developing Sunset Overdrive. It literally does not matter.
In the end, Sony offered a price(what they thought Insomniac was worth as a whole) and Insomniac agreed. MS could have done the same.

bender

That experience is what matters the most for insomniac.

 

[CatLady]

Expected reaction post from you. Thats why i dropped the discussion. No point in answering any of your hysterical posts.

Yeah right, I'm sure it wasn't because you posted BS you couldn't' back up.

 

[feynoob]

If this deal for any reason gets rejected, alot of fantasy would vaporate.

From idas

If the deal gets rejected, I think that platform holders won't be able to buy any publisher with big IPs that are regularly topping the charts and have strong network effects.

So, I think that Take-Two (GTA and NBA2K), Electronic Arts (all the sports games), Activision Blizzard (Call of Duty), Ubisoft (Assassin's Creed), Square Enix (Final Fantasy), Capcom (Resident Evil), Epic (Fortnite), Bandai Namco (all the anime/manga games) or Krafton (PUGB) would mean trouble.

Big Tech (Netflix, Apple, Amazon, Meta or Google) would have a better option to buy those publishers because lots of issues that MS is having right now wouldn't apply.

I think that MS should be fine buying almost any independent developer and small or medium publishers with good to great IPs that could be made exclusive without tipping the scales (SEGA, Konami, Warner Bros, Koei Tecmo, NCSoft, Paradox, Focus, etc)

 

[GHG]

Yeah right, I'm sure it wasn't because you posted BS you couldn't' back up.

Because I'm nice, here:

Note the "several competitors". Also note "stores and platforms".

The "competitors" are likely to be a number of the companies they named throughout the document as competitors:

It's not just Sony who have raised concerns in private to the regulators about this deal.

 

[3liteDragon]

GHG maybe CMA should also look at Insomniac, which gave Sony spiderman, miles, now spiderman 2, and wolverine all thanks to MS investing on insomniac, which made the engine that is used for these games.
Or maybe bungie, which MS helped put them where they are now.

We can talk all this shit nonstop here.

Not the game, but the engine that is used for those games.
Sony basically got free engine at expense of MS.

Fam, it's not Sony's fault that they're able to scope out talent & that MS didn't bother acquiring Insomniac. You're really comparing a $229M purchase & making a big deal out of a custom game engine (which is something other AAA studios have as well) to MS buying out a major third-party publisher for $69B. Sony saw potential in them after Spider-Man & went for it, now they became a powerhouse studio under them.

 

[feynoob]

Fam, it's not Sony's fault that they're able to scope out talent & that MS didn't bother acquiring Insomniac. You're really comparing a $229M purchase & making a big deal out of a custom game engine (which is something other AAA studios have as well) to MS buying out a major third-party publisher for $69B. Sony saw potential in them after Spider-Man & went for it, now they became a powerhouse studio under them.

No one is blaming Sony here.
Why are people taking the wrong context of my words?

 

[Jimmyisback]

So much for crying that Microsoft wants to pull COD from Playstation.

I wonder what excuse will Jimbo pull out of his hat now.

As I said. Sony always knew that COD will be on Playstation. But their worry is not about Playstation-less COD. It is about Playstation without COD marketing deal and with COD on Game Pass on competing platform. Jimbo is terrified of that...

Jim Ryan: "The deal isn't adequate enough. You gotta give us PS exclusivity for years, extra content and dlc exclusive to playstation, exclusive marketing rights, and you can't put it on game pass. This is adequate."

 

[feynoob]

Because I'm nice, here:

Note the "several competitors". Also note "stores and platforms".

The "competitors" are likely to be a number of the companies they named throughout the document as competitors:

It's not just Sony who have raised concerns in private to the regulators about this deal.

One of those people were google, which had bethesda games.

• The Elder Scrolls Online: Tamriel Unlimited
• RAGE 2
• Wolfenstein: Youngblood
• DOOM Eternal (BATTLEMODE)
• DOOM 64
• The Elder Scrolls Online: High Isle
• DOOM
• The Elder Scrolls Online: Morrowind
• The Elder Scrolls Online - Greymoor

And here is Phil harrison rant about MS buying bethesda, And that is after shutting down their 1st party studio.

Microsoft-Bethesda Acquisition Reportedly Partly Responsible for Stadia Studio Closures - IGN

Google Stadia General Manager Phil Harrison reportedly pointed to Microsoft's acquisition of Bethesda as a reason for closing Stadia's first-party developers.

www.ign.com

The landmark Microsoft-Bethesda acquisition was reportedly a factor in Google's decision to close its Stadia game development studios.

A report from Kotaku says that Google Stadia General Manager Phil Harrison brought it up as a factor during a Q&A with staff following Google's decision to shut down its two internal game studios in Los Angeles and Montreal in early February.

According to Kotaku's sources, Harrison "pointed specifically to Microsoft's buying spree and planned acquisition of Bethesda Software later this year as one of the factors that had made Google decide to close the book on original game development." Microsoft announced its plans to acquire Zenimax Media and Bethesda Softworks in September 2020, bringing blockbuster franchises such as The Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Doom under its wing. It's not entirely clear what the connection between the acquisition and Stadia's decision is, although it could be seen as an inability to compete in the market.

 

[CatLady]

Because I'm nice, here:

Note the "several competitors". Also note "stores and platforms".

The "competitors" are likely to be a number of the companies they named throughout the document as competitors:

It's not just Sony who have raised concerns in private to the regulators about this deal.

Unfortunately, we don't know who is allegedly concerned, but in 230 & 231 It still sounds to me like Phil Harrison and Google using Xbox/Game Pass as their excuse for their failed business model. From the last paragraphs it sounds like the regulators didn't find any merit to these claims and that the other streaming companies would "continue to compete effectively against Microsoft" post-merger.

Anyway, I do appreciate you posting this information. Thanks.

 

[feynoob]

Geez activision/blizzards. That is alot of players.

 

[ReBurn]

Because I'm nice, here:

Note the "several competitors". Also note "stores and platforms".

The "competitors" are likely to be a number of the companies they named throughout the document as competitors:

It's not just Sony who have raised concerns in private to the regulators about this deal.

The "several competitors" note is interesting in the way it is worded. It says that Microsoft did not uphold the promise they made, yet Bethesda content is still available on multiple stores and platforms. You can buy Bethesda games and DLC on the PlayStation store right now. Microsoft releases content on PC as well as Xbox, which is multiple platforms. Microsoft releases new games on Steam as well as their own storefront, which is multiple stores. If Starfield goes to Steam then they would have done exactly what the document says they failed to uphold. I don't recall Microsoft ever committing to making every new title available on every platform and store, but that's the standard people seem to be holding them to. How could the CMA prove that Microsoft didn't honor their promise when the empirical evidence that they are honoring it is right there to be discovered with a Google search?

The "one competitor" in the second blurb is probably Sony. EA and Ubisoft put their own games on their own services and make their services available as part of other subscriptions, so this wouldn't foreclose on them. Stadia wasn't really ever a multi-game subscription service and Luna has one, but many of the games on Luna are currently on game pass. The only other one could be GFN I suppose, but that's not really a multi-game service like game pass as that lets you play games you already own.

There really aren't any gotchas there.

 

[feynoob]

The "several competitors" note is interesting in the way it is worded. It says that Microsoft did not uphold the promise they made, yet Bethesda content is still available on multiple stores and platforms. You can buy Bethesda games and DLC on the PlayStation store right now. Microsoft releases content on PC as well as Xbox, which is multiple platforms. Microsoft releases new games on Steam as well as their own storefront, which is multiple stores. If Starfield goes to Steam then they would have done exactly what the document says they failed to uphold. I don't recall Microsoft ever committing to making every new title available on every platform and store, but that's the standard people seem to be holding them to. How could the CMA prove that Microsoft didn't honor their promise when the empirical evidence that they are honoring it is right there to be discovered with a Google search?

The "one competitor" in the second blurb is probably Sony. EA and Ubisoft put their own games on their own services and make their services available as part of other subscriptions, so this wouldn't foreclose on them. Stadia wasn't really ever a multi-game subscription service and Luna has one, but many of the games on Luna are currently on game pass. The only other one could be GFN I suppose, but that's not really a multi-game service like game pass as that lets you play games you already own.

There really aren't any gotchas there.

There isn't. MS still hasn't removed bethesda games from Sony.
Their games was on stadia even after the purchase.

Hell, Bethesda is giving free copies for games like ESO on pc, to those stadia users.

Redirect Notice

"With the impending Stadia shutdown, Bethesda is offering free copies of MMORPG Elder Scrolls Online for Stadia players alongside the ability to transfer any in-game progress to the platform."

 

[CatLady]

The "several competitors" note is interesting in the way it is worded. It says that Microsoft did not uphold the promise they made, yet Bethesda content is still available on multiple stores and platforms. You can buy Bethesda games and DLC on the PlayStation store right now. Microsoft releases content on PC as well as Xbox, which is multiple platforms. Microsoft releases new games on Steam as well as their own storefront, which is multiple stores. If Starfield goes to Steam then they would have done exactly what the document says they failed to uphold. I don't recall Microsoft ever committing to making every new title available on every platform and store, but that's the standard people seem to be holding them to. How could the CMA prove that Microsoft didn't honor their promise when the empirical evidence that they are honoring it is right there to be discovered with a Google search?

The "one competitor" in the second blurb is probably Sony. EA and Ubisoft put their own games on their own services and make their services available as part of other subscriptions, so this wouldn't foreclose on them. Stadia wasn't really ever a multi-game subscription service and Luna has one, but many of the games on Luna are currently on game pass. The only other one could be GFN I suppose, but that's not really a multi-game service like game pass as that lets you play games you already own.

There really aren't any gotchas there.

I think the first paragraph is Phil Harrison and/or Google. I seem to remember seeing a claim about Xbox reneging on a promise to leave existing Bethesda content won other platforms attributed to Phil Harrison and/or Google and thinking at the time it was a total crock since their content was available all over the place.

I don't know about the 2nd paragraph, but I think you're right it's probably Sony, it certainly sounds like them.

 

[feynoob]

The concern should come from cloud section. Unlike stadia, GeForce is kinda the victim here. This should be a big concern for CMA however. Unless the deal between bethesda and GeForce fell off, and they couldn't come with agreement.

Bethesda pulls its games from Nvidia's streaming service GeForce Now

Bethesda has pulled its games from GeForce Now, Nvidia's streaming service.

www.eurogamer.net

In a post on the Nvidia forum, a company representative provided a list of all the Bethesda games that left GeForce Now yesterday - and only Wolfenstein Youngblood survived the cull.

Here's the list:

Dishonored
Dishonored 2
Dishonored: Death of the Outsider
Doom
Everspace
Fallout 3
Fallout 76
Fallout: New Vegas
Prey
Quake Champions
Rage 2 (Bethesda.net / Steam)
The Elder Scrolls Online: Elsweyr
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition
The Evil Within 2
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
Wolfenstein: The New Order
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

The reason why I am bringing this, is that you buy these games on Steam. So you basically own them. GeForce only allows you to stream. If there is no contract issues, This means MS is trying to undercut GeForce. That is not a good move and anti competitive.

GHG we can agree on this part.

 

[gothmog]

I found this interesting that even though it is a coincidence it shows how the White House is feeling about large monopolistic companies in general:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/whi...ter-debacle-capitalism-needs-competition.html

Declining to comment on "any potential investigation" by the Justice Department, Jean-Pierre said Biden has been clear on how he feels about companies that hold monopolies.

"He's been crystal clear on this," Jean-Pierre said Friday. "And I quote: 'capitalism without competition isn't capitalism, it's exploitation.'"

It's going to be kinda hilarious if Taylor Swift ends up being the thing that sinks this deal.

 

[CatLady]

The concern should come from cloud section. Unlike stadia, GeForce is kinda the victim here. This should be a big concern for CMA however. Unless the deal between bethesda and GeForce fell off, and they couldn't come with agreement.

http://[URL]https://www.eurogamer.n...es-from-nvidias-streaming-service-geforce-now

[/URL]

In a post on the Nvidia forum, a company representative provided a list of all the Bethesda games that left GeForce Now yesterday - and only Wolfenstein Youngblood survived the cull.

Here's the list:

Dishonored
Dishonored 2
Dishonored: Death of the Outsider
Doom
Everspace
Fallout 3
Fallout 76
Fallout: New Vegas
Prey
Quake Champions
Rage 2 (Bethesda.net / Steam)
The Elder Scrolls Online: Elsweyr
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition
The Evil Within 2
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
Wolfenstein: The New Order
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

The reason why I am bringing this, is that you buy these games on Steam. So you basically own them. GeForce only allows you to stream. If there is no contract issues, This means MS is trying to undercut GeForce. That is not a good move and anti competitive.

GHG we can agree on this part.

I'd never heard this before. That sucks for GeForce and their users. It's unfortunate, but at least unlike Stadia the GeForce users own their games through Steam so they aren't completely SOL.

 

[pasterpl]

Sony isn't the only one with objections.

From what we have heard so far, Sony is the only party with objections.

 

[Menzies]

I'd never heard this before. That sucks for GeForce and their users. It's unfortunate, but at least unlike Stadia the GeForce users own their games through Steam so they aren't completely SOL.

Most publishers pulled their products from GFN post beta. The dates from the article also suggest Zenimax/Bethesda pulled their games prior to the MS acquisition.

Not sure how much sympathy I have for these new cloud streaming entrants kicking up a fuss (if they are). Surely, we want these new entrants to actually invest in the industry themselves. To just emerge on the scene as a competing store with your pre-existing cloud infrastructure to then wash your hands job done, expecting content to come knocking is...rather poorly committed.

We're talking about some of the wealthiest companies on the planet, yet they can't find the funds to create their own studio's or invest in other publishers?

 

[Goalus]

The concern should come from cloud section. Unlike stadia, GeForce is kinda the victim here. This should be a big concern for CMA however. Unless the deal between bethesda and GeForce fell off, and they couldn't come with agreement.

http://[URL]https://www.eurogamer.n...es-from-nvidias-streaming-service-geforce-now

[/URL]

In a post on the Nvidia forum, a company representative provided a list of all the Bethesda games that left GeForce Now yesterday - and only Wolfenstein Youngblood survived the cull.

Here's the list:

Dishonored
Dishonored 2
Dishonored: Death of the Outsider
Doom
Everspace
Fallout 3
Fallout 76
Fallout: New Vegas
Prey
Quake Champions
Rage 2 (Bethesda.net / Steam)
The Elder Scrolls Online: Elsweyr
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Special Edition
The Evil Within 2
Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus
Wolfenstein: The New Order
Wolfenstein: The Old Blood

The reason why I am bringing this, is that you buy these games on Steam. So you basically own them. GeForce only allows you to stream. If there is no contract issues, This means MS is trying to undercut GeForce. That is not a good move and anti competitive.

GHG we can agree on this part.

It's about as anticompetitive as Sony's daily business.

 

[reksveks]

The concern should come from cloud section. Unlike stadia, GeForce is kinda the victim here. This should be a big concern for CMA however. Unless the deal between bethesda and GeForce fell off, and they couldn't come with agreement.

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL]https://...es-from-nvidias-streaming-service-geforce-now

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

I agree that the cloud streaming market are is the more concerning one but a bit of context is that a number of publishers pulled their games once geforce now went 'commercial'. Once nvidia started getting paid by users, the publishers obviously wanted a cut. I do think publishers still need to opt-in to a service like geforce now even if the end user has bought the game via a store like steam.

But yeah, this is the more contentious part of the deal and unsure of the concessions that MS could come up with that isn't a pain at least relative to ease of committing cod on PlayStation.

 

[Kagey K]

I agree that the cloud streaming market are is the more concerning one but a bit of context is that a number of publishers pulled their games once geforce now went 'commercial'. Once nvidia started getting paid by users, the publishers obviously wanted a cut. I do think publishers still need to opt-in to a service like geforce now even if the end user has bought the game via a store like steam.

But yeah, this is the more contentious part of the deal and unsure of the concessions that MS could come up with that isn't a pain at least relative to ease of committing cod on PlayStation.

The thing is of they impose any restriction on Cloud. It will affect all players using the cloud, and have an impact on all of them.

Doing that would go directly against what they are claiming to protect, and ensure no other player tries to enter.

 

[TrebleShot]

Safe to assume Sony needs COD more than COD needs it.

They weren't wrong when they said COD is its own platform.

Hope COD stays on PS indefinitely.

 

[Three]

Conveniently, you bypassed the hypothetical situation where; -

1. Two-parties solicit anti-competitive behaviour with long term deals to control markets

Depends what it is. If it's a cartel for example then they can still get hit by regulatory fines. If it's some other artificial restraint they can too. What you think is anti competitive behaviour though isn't anti-competitive at all.

Anyway, I thought companies don't do forever deals because it's in no way beneficial to them but they would with absolutely no regulatory pressure?

If a company is independent they will not tie themselves down to another company's benefit. What anti competitive long term deal can they do? You make your game exclusive long term to a platform, that's your perogative but you are only putting your own company or franchise at risk when in whatever years the market situation changes and you're stuck in a contract that benefits somebody else more than it does you.

2. A competitor is exerting market power - through position for deals not available to all competitors.

All the deals are available to all competitors. as long as they are third party independent they can be approached and available. Position is built through competition. 360 had all the deals, was there a lack of competition? Consumers influence position, in acquisitions consumers have no say. If no regulators existed a company can control everything. This whataboutism of 'what about deals' isn't relevant.

3. The competition is not a trillion-dollar conglomerate and is less able to compete for input.

The great thing about independent companies is that the input is always there, it's not blocked by the trillion dollar conglomerate. If you have failed to develop an install base to convince independent companies to make a games for your product only then that's only your own failure but you are not blocked from doing anything.

Well, I look forward to all the competition laws are not flawed and well-reasoned posts should this deal fail, and Microsoft just buys Call of Duty exclusive for 10 years.

Good luck. If MS paid enough to cover the release of 10 games in lost sales on PS why wouldn't Activison take it? That's their perogative. They wouldn't even have the risk of creating low quality stuff that doesn't sell as well as expected because they would just be getting paid by MS regardless depending on the terms. People would bitch about it just like they did other exclusivity deals but can you remember anybody and I mean anybody saying regulators should step in or that anti competition laws are flawed with any of those deals? GTA4 exclusives for xbox, COD xbox exclusives or PS exclusives? People are bringing it up now because it's a whataboutism for something that affects competition far worse and is actually regulated.

 

[Banjo64]

Please answer honestly.

 

[GHG]

The "several competitors" note is interesting in the way it is worded. It says that Microsoft did not uphold the promise they made, yet Bethesda content is still available on multiple stores and platforms. You can buy Bethesda games and DLC on the PlayStation store right now. Microsoft releases content on PC as well as Xbox, which is multiple platforms. Microsoft releases new games on Steam as well as their own storefront, which is multiple stores. If Starfield goes to Steam then they would have done exactly what the document says they failed to uphold. I don't recall Microsoft ever committing to making every new title available on every platform and store, but that's the standard people seem to be holding them to. How could the CMA prove that Microsoft didn't honor their promise when the empirical evidence that they are honoring it is right there to be discovered with a Google search?

The "one competitor" in the second blurb is probably Sony. EA and Ubisoft put their own games on their own services and make their services available as part of other subscriptions, so this wouldn't foreclose on them. Stadia wasn't really ever a multi-game subscription service and Luna has one, but many of the games on Luna are currently on game pass. The only other one could be GFN I suppose, but that's not really a multi-game service like game pass as that lets you play games you already own.

There really aren't any gotchas there.

Not sure where you're seeing a "gotcha"?

I'm providing details of what has literally been made public by the CMA. They have all the access to the relevant information and have the ability to ask for further details/evidence if required. All you have access to is Google, they have the ability to directly request evidence to find out what exactly the companies in question are referring to.

All we can do is speculate based on what little information they provide but the fact is they have made it clear that it is not just a single entity who has voiced concerns, if it were they wouldn't say "several". In the interest of having a factual discussion where we can it would be incorrect to state "only Sony has a problem with this" when the evidence we have available states otherwise.

Most publishers pulled their products from GFN post beta. The dates from the article also suggest Zenimax/Bethesda pulled their games prior to the MS acquisition.

Not sure how much sympathy I have for these new cloud streaming entrants kicking up a fuss (if they are). Surely, we want these new entrants to actually invest in the industry themselves. To just emerge on the scene as a competing store with your pre-existing cloud infrastructure to then wash your hands job done, expecting content to come knocking is...rather poorly committed.

We're talking about some of the wealthiest companies on the planet, yet they can't find the funds to create their own studio's or invest in other publishers?

This is a strange take considering GFN is one of the few cloud streaming services that puts an emphasis on offering a way for people to play the games they already own. Expecting them to suddenly go out there and start buying publishers/studios is a gross misunderstanding of their business model and approach to all of this.

 

[SSfox]

bender

Personally it has nothing to do with it being Xbox exclusive. I just don't like this type saint rowish and clownish art direction, with all the bullshit and flying around with nonsens..

 

[Menzies]

This is a strange take considering GFN is one of the few cloud streaming services that puts an emphasis on offering a way for people to play the games they already own. Expecting them to suddenly go out there and start buying publishers/studios is a gross misunderstanding of their business model and approach to all of this.

And yet, why then did almost every notable publisher pull their games from the service? Maybe their business model would have better served had they kept the content providers abreast of their plans and revenue sharing.

 

[GHG]

And yet, why then did almost every notable publisher pull their games from the service? Maybe their business model would have better served had they kept the content providers abreast of their plans and revenue sharing.

That's for them to work out with their partners (some of which they already have got it sorted out after initial teething problems).

It's very strange to see this kind of stance when literally all they wanted to do was facilitate people playing games they already own on PC. From a consumer perspective that absolutely makes sense, it's akin to taking a disc version of a game you own and playing it on hardware somewhere that you don't own. You can buy your game anywhere you fancy on PC and then hook it up to their service and play. Granted, digital licensing is clearly a different proposition (as they swiftly found out) but what they had in mind would ensure an individual can still have access to their existing library in instances where the necessary local hardware isn't.

It's a business model that is agnostic and provides a number of net benefits to consumers but you're not a fan of it because some corporations disagreed with it? This is both ironic and surprising based on some of our previous discussions.

 

[Menzies]

That's for them to work out with their partners (some of which they already have got it sorted out after initial teething problems).

It's very strange to see this kind of stance when literally all they wanted to do was facilitate people playing games they already own on PC. From a consumer perspective that absolutely makes sense, it's akin to taking a disc version of a game you own and playing it on hardware somewhere that you don't own. You can buy your game anywhere you fancy on PC and then hook it up to their service and play. Granted, digital licensing is clearly a different proposition (as they swiftly found out) but what they had in mind would ensure an individual can still have access to their existing library in instances where the necessary local hardware isn't.

It's a business model that is agnostic and provides a number of net benefits to consumers but you're not a fan of it because some corporations disagreed with it? This is both ironic and surprising based on some of our previous discussions.

I think you misunderstand.

I have nothing against the business, which places accessibility and availability as core values and gives consumers options.

What I am attempting to speak against is the half measure attempts we've seen. I always noted and *despised* the lukewarm efforts of Microsoft with the Xbox One, where it seemed like they had already abandoned it, with listless energy and investment and effectively left it out to die. It wasn't a main pillar and wasn't part of their vision until Phil and Satya came along.

I think the same can be said of Stadia and the other streaming platforms. They have some serious muscle behind them with their parent companies, but the dipping the toe in to test the waters level of effort is offensively on show for all to bear witness. If you want to compete, have faith and take risks. At least try before you give up.

 

[GHG]

I think you misunderstand.

I have nothing against the business, which places accessibility and availability as core values and gives consumers options.

What I am attempting to speak against is the half measure attempts we've seen. I always noted and *despised* the lukewarm efforts of Microsoft with the Xbox One, where it seemed like they had already abandoned it, with listless energy and investment and effectively left it out to die. It wasn't a main pillar and wasn't part of their vision until Phil and Satya came along.

I think the same can be said of Stadia and the other streaming platforms. They have some serious muscle behind them with their parent companies, but the dipping the toe in to test the waters level of effort is offensively on show for all to bear witness. If you want to compete, have faith and take risks. At least try before you give up.

Not sure where you're getting the idea that Nvidia are not serious about GeForce Now or are about to give up? The service is growing at an exponential rate:

GeForce Now surpasses 20 million registered players - KitGuru

Of all the many game streaming services, Nvidia’s GeForce now is one of the most interesting. Billed

www.kitguru.net

Of all the many game streaming services, Nvidia's GeForce now is one of the most interesting. Billed as a streaming service which allows you to play your already-owned PC games library but through the cloud, Nvidia has managed to carve out a nice niche for themselves, with the service now said to have surpassed 20 million users.

Announced during a recent earnings call (and reported by PCmag), the GPU manufacturer and service provider revealed that the company's GeForce Now game streaming service has officially surpassed 20 million registered players. This is an impressive amount of growth, especially considering the service only launched two years ago.

For comparison's sake, Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass service, which first launched all the way back in 2017, has 25 million members as of January 2022. Of course, the two services are rather different when it comes to each service's library, but thanks to this it seems the two services can co-exist and grow together.

GeForce Now currently offers more than 1300 titles to stream (though you must own the game outright to play it. That being said, with so many titles available, and more being added constantly, it is likely that many of your own libraries would be compatible with GeForce Now. It will be interesting to see where the service is at just one year from today in this fast-moving industry.

They don't need to do things the same way as Microsoft in order to be successful.

 

[feynoob]

On November 28, 2021, based on discussions with Messrs. Kelly, Corti and Morgado, Mr. Kotick communicated to Mr. Spencer that the Activision Blizzard Board of Directors might be willing to entertain a proposal, and potentially to engage in discussions relating to a potential strategic combination, if Microsoft was prepared to propose a transaction in a range of $90.00-$105.00 per Activision Blizzard share, rather than the $80.00 per share valuation that Mr. Spencer had indicated

tm225196-3_prem14a - none - 30.4845416s

 

[Pelta88]

I found this interesting that even though it is a coincidence it shows how the White House is feeling about large monopolistic companies in general:
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/18/whi...ter-debacle-capitalism-needs-competition.html



It's going to be kinda hilarious if Taylor Swift ends up being the thing that sinks this deal.

Wait. What?

How did Taylor Swift enter this arena?

 

[Makoto-Yuki]

Wait. What?

How did Taylor Swift enter this arena?

Probably something to do with the Ticketmaster carry on. She's doing a new tour and Ticketmaster fucked up. I'm not sure the exact details. Ticketmaster has far too much control over live events and needs taken down/broken up.

"It started Tuesday, when millions crowded a presale for Swift's long-awaited Eras Tour, resulting in crashes, prolonged waits and frantic purchases. By Thursday, Ticketmaster had canceled the general sale, citing insufficient remaining tickets and inciting a firestorm of outrage from fans. Swift herself said the ordeal "really pisses her off."

Ticketmaster apologized but the bad blood had already been sowed. And now fans — and politicians — have started acting on it.

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez directed Swifties to where they could make U.S. Department of Justice complaints. Multiple state attorneys general — including in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, key states in Swift's origin story — have announced investigations."

source:

Taylor Swift ticket trouble could drive political engagement

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Probably something to do with the Ticketmaster carry on. She's doing a new tour and Ticketmaster fucked up. I'm not sure the exact details. Ticketmaster has far too much control over live events and needs taken down/broken up.

"It started Tuesday, when millions crowded a presale for Swift's long-awaited Eras Tour, resulting in crashes, prolonged waits and frantic purchases. By Thursday, Ticketmaster had canceled the general sale, citing insufficient remaining tickets and inciting a firestorm of outrage from fans. Swift herself said the ordeal "really pisses her off."

Ticketmaster apologized but the bad blood had already been sowed. And now fans — and politicians — have started acting on it.

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez directed Swifties to where they could make U.S. Department of Justice complaints. Multiple state attorneys general — including in Pennsylvania and Tennessee, key states in Swift's origin story — have announced investigations."

source:

http://[URL][URL][URL][URL]https://...-could-drive-political-engagement/ar-AA14p8Yv

[/URL][/URL][/URL][/URL]

Funny how people don't give a fuck about emerging monopolies until they are denied what they desire.
Suddenly the outrage is there.

Let MS buy Activision.
Let them raise their prices for Gamepass until even the last idiot realizes how dumb it was to let MS aquire everything they wanted to dominate the market.
Lets see how many good games MS Studios will offer down the road.

I wouldn't be surprised if they end up making every game add mobile gatcha crap mechanics once the competition has bleeded out or left the market.

 

[feynoob]

Funny how peolple don't give a fuck about emerging monopolies until they are denied what they desire.
Suddenly the outrage is there.

Let MS buy Activistion.
Let them raise their prices for Gamepass until even the last idiot realizes how dumb it was to let MS aquire everything they wanted to dominate the market.
Lets see how many good games MS Studios will offer down the road.

I wouldn't be surprised if they end up making every game add mobile gatcha crap mechanics once the competition has bleeded out or left the market.

Gaming is a competitive field.
MS lost xbox one due to that.

Whether MS acquires alot of devs or not, it won't be an issue. Because there are tons of studios and publishers. MS would have to acquire the entire industry to achieve that.

 

[Bonsaibäumchen]

Gaming is a competitive field.
MS lost xbox one due to that.

Whether MS acquires alot of devs or not, it won't be an issue. Because there are tons of studios and publishers. MS would have to acquire the entire industry to achieve that.

No they don't.
They only have to gather enough subscribtions on their plattform until theres enough content to keep people busy only using gamepass.
This will lead to a smaller consumer base for every other developer. Which in turn can decrease the amount available for games outside of gamepass.

Once they achived that MS will be the force deciding what kind of game or content is worthy and they will dictate how much external developers will get for offering their games to gamepass.

 

[The_Mike]

How heavy Spencer and Ryan is going deep down into this I couldnt help but think about this meme which I just created:

 

[Three]

I always noted and *despised* the lukewarm efforts of Microsoft with the Xbox One, where it seemed like they had already abandoned it, with listless energy and investment and effectively left it out to die. It wasn't a main pillar and wasn't part of their vision until Phil and Satya came along.

Enter Phil Spencer for effort? The guy was head of xbox throughout 6.5yrs of the xbox ones 7yr lifespan. Same with Nadella at 6yrs out of the 7yrs. They went the subscription route and the reason publishers and devs started to remove their games from GFN was because they were waiting for their subscription/cloud payday from MS, Google or other streaming competitors. Competition on that front allowed them income where they weren't getting any from already bought games. It only goes to show that the publishers know that any additional customers who don't own hardware but would like to stream is less important for income than the already established audience who want an additional feature or sub.

 

[feynoob]

No they don't.
They only have to gather enough subscribtions on their plattform until theres enough content to keep people busy only using gamepass.
This will lead to a smaller consumer base for every other developer. Which in turn can decrease the amount available for games outside of gamepass.

Once they achived that MS will be the force deciding what kind of game or content is worthy and they will dictate how much external developers will get for offering their games to gamepass.

Talking like someone who has no idea how competitive gaming sector is.

Xbox lost xbox one, because consumers didn't get what they wanted.

If MS does that, gamepass would nosedive to the ground.

 

[reksveks]

Two different threads but kinda related

https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-launches-market-probe-into-apple-and-googles-mobile-dominance/

 

[ReBurn]

No they don't.
They only have to gather enough subscribtions on their plattform until theres enough content to keep people busy only using gamepass.
This will lead to a smaller consumer base for every other developer. Which in turn can decrease the amount available for games outside of gamepass.

Once they achived that MS will be the force deciding what kind of game or content is worthy and they will dictate how much external developers will get for offering their games to gamepass.

We spend a lot of time talking about what Microsoft could do. But Microsoft couldn't do that, at least not in the US, because it is illegal. The Sherman Act would almost certainly apply.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We spend a lot of time talking about what Microsoft could do. But Microsoft couldn't do that, at least not in the US, because it is illegal. The Sherman Act would almost certainly apply.

You give too much faith in the system that has been broken for quite some time.

 

[NickFire]

You give too much faith in the system that has been broken for quite some time.

I'm more of a pragmatist on this. Why trust someone to keep another from squeezing the balls too hard. Instead, just don't let anyone have the industry by the balls in the first place.

 

[DeepEnigma]

I'm more of a pragmatist on this. Why trust someone to keep another from squeezing the balls too hard. Instead, just don't let anyone have the industry by the balls in the first place.

Exactly. It was supposed to be designed as a preventative measure, but it's used more as a greased palm and public sector contract measure now.

 

[kuncol02]

They only have to gather enough subscribtions on their plattform until theres enough content to keep people busy only using gamepass.

And how is that working for Netflix?

 

[CatLady]

This is a strange take considering GFN is one of the few cloud streaming services that puts an emphasis on offering a way for people to play the games they already own. Expecting them to suddenly go out there and start buying publishers/studios is a gross misunderstanding of their business model and approach to all of this.

If the users already bought and paid for their game on Steam the publishers/devs have already been paid, why would they be entitled to a cut from GFN? What's the difference if their game is played on Steam or GFN cloud?