Support NeoGAF

[IFireflyl]

It is extremely stupid to agree with whatever regulators say when it is clear they don't know what they are talking about. There is nothing arbitrary about normal clearly defined historical market definitions.

Game pass was finally determined to NOT be an independent market only an alternative payment for games. It is asinine to then argue that a component of an alternative payment method which is not independent is now a market.

I have seen little evidence some regulators could distinguish between what Nvidia is doing with GeForce Now and what MS is doing with Game pass ultimate. Just because both have cloud aspects doesn't make them identical. Pretty sure you know that.

Cloud gaming is gaming without the game running on the device that you're playing it from. That is the clearly defined, historical market definition. xCloud falls under cloud gaming, irrespective of the subscription service required to access xCloud. But you won't see this I'm sure, since I am almost 100% sure you blocked me for countering virtually every argument that you've made in this thread.

And here is Microsoft confirming this:

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/cloud-gaming

Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta)

Stream hundreds of high-quality games anywhere with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate, and more.

 

[Ozriel]

Patently false.

1) There is no 10 year cliff edge on Minecraft and

…because no regulator demanded they kept the series multiplatform or forced them to sign concessions.
Access agreements are most often time bound.

2) We have yet to see Minecraft 2 platforms

We've had Minecraft: Story Mode, Minecraft Legends and Minecraft Dungeons come out as multiplatform games, day one.
There's even a PSVR version of Minecraft!

 

[phil_t98]

Cloud gaming is gaming without the game running on the device that you're playing it from. That is the clearly defined, historical market definition. xCloud falls under cloud gaming, irrespective of the subscription service required to access xCloud. But you won't see this I'm sure, since I am almost 100% sure you blocked me for countering virtually every argument that you've made in this thread.

so at the moment how do you play Sony games in the cloud? Microsoft games in the cloud?

 

[IFireflyl]

so at the moment how do you play Sony games in the cloud? Microsoft games in the cloud?

You have to subscribe to whatever cloud gaming service that you want to use. What are you getting at? How do you watch Netflix? Your question is very vague.

 

[phil_t98]

You have to subscribe to whatever cloud gaming service that you want to use. What are you getting at?

basically you play them on Playstation or xbox and at the moment Sony have sale of 2-1 in favour its just the sub services are stronger because of Microsoft offering games day 1. they both can be played on pc to so that's equal there

the market for cloud gaming hasn't even hit a billion yet

Cloud Gaming Market Size, Share & Growth Report, 2030

The global cloud gaming market size was estimated at USD 1.02 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow at a CAGR of 45.5% from 2023 to 2030.

www.grandviewresearch.com

it is growing though

 

[Dick Jones]

A company recouping their investment is absolutely a positive thing, every additional sale is then contributing to their profit. Are you taking the position that it would not be profitable for Square to port FFVII to Xbox?

I'm saying that if the positive is that it would just make its money back isn't an actual incentive to make ports. That money could be used for something with a better return of investment. Don't you agree?

 

[DeepEnigma]

It is extremely stupid to agree with whatever regulators say when it is clear they don't know what they are talking about.

Can't wait for the flippy floppy if it's approved.

 

[Three]

basically you play them on Playstation or xbox and at the moment Sony have sale of 2-1 in favour its just the sub services are stronger because of Microsoft offering games day 1. they both can be played on pc to so that's equal there

Why would you play xbox games via cloud on an xbox at the moment? The whole point is that you would play them on other devices when you can't locally.

 

[Three]

Can't wait for the flippy floppy if it's approved.

Should have seen the love he kept typing out for Brazil's CADE. It's only US, UK and maybe EU regulators who are dumb apparently.

 

[IFireflyl]

basically you play them on Playstation or xbox and at the moment Sony have sale of 2-1 in favour its just the sub services are stronger because of Microsoft offering games day 1. they both can be played on pc to so that's equal there

https://support.xbox.com/en-US/help/games-apps/cloud-gaming/about-cloud-gaming

You definitely aren't restricted to just the Xbox Console or a Windows PC with Xbox's cloud gaming.

 

[Kvally]

And he is finally banned. Yikes!

 

[DarkMage619]

Should have seen the love he kept typing out for Brazil's CADE. It's only US, UK and maybe EU regulators who are dumb apparently.

Any regulator that omits Nintendo is demonstrates complete ignorance of the games industry. People had no problem mentioning Nintendo when it comes to them beating Xbox in console sales. To now act like they don't count is pretty silly. Xbox is third out of two consoles now? XSS is a high performance console? These arent serious arguments.

 

[Thirty7ven]

A company recouping their investment is absolutely a positive thing, every additional sale is then contributing to their profit. Are you taking the position that it would not be profitable for Square to port FFVII to Xbox?

If they don't get Sony's resources, then that means the development for the game and marketing of the game will be much more expensive. If the project becomes much more expensive then suddenly it needs Xbox to perform. In the past it didn't, so they take Sony's deal. This is easy.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Any regulator that omits Nintendo is demonstrates complete ignorance of the games industry. People had no problem mentioning Nintendo when it comes to them beating Xbox in console sales. To now act like they don't count is pretty silly. Xbox is third out of two consoles now? XSS is a high performance console? These arent serious arguments.

MS themselves omitted Nintendo as a "direct competitor."

We've been over this countless times.

 

[Three]

Any regulator that omits Nintendo is demonstrates complete ignorance of the games industry. People had no problem mentioning Nintendo when it comes to them beating Xbox in console sales. To now act like they don't count is pretty silly. Xbox is third out of two consoles now? XSS is a high performance console? These arent serious arguments.

"You see right honorable judge, Nintendo competes for the same sales as Xbox and PlayStation because I saw forum members say xbox is in third. How could regulators be so stupid!?"

 

[Ozriel]

I think there's a good chance the Activision/Blizzard guys will probably take over the xbox division.

That's extremely unlikely to happen.

Microsoft needs to manage what it has. Adding more studios isn't going to fix their mismanagement issue: it's going to exacerbate it.

Companies can do two things at the same time. They can resolve lingering management issues and still boost their first party lineup for more revenue, content for Gamepass and their mobile plans.

Ironically, it does seem like acquired publishers won't exacerbate issues. We've heard nothing of any issues at Bethesda, for example, and the studios under BGS continue to run and function as normal under the pre-acquisition leadership. An acquired Activision would most likely function the same.

Sony works closely with their studios, and their studios share resources (knowledge, practices, et cetera). Microsoft's studios almost function like individual, walled-off gardens, and Microsoft seems to expect their studios to sink or swim on their own instead of working with the studios, and bringing support from Studio A to Studio B.

This seems really inaccurate, since we've long since known multiple examples of MS studios collaborating. Turn 10 and Playground share tech. Rare's shared their Sea of Thieves water tech with other studios. Coalition staff have provided support for Halo and consistently provide support to other studios using Unreal. Recent previews for Redfall express good impressions about the shooting…largely because Arkane has gotten significant support from iD software.

 

[fred420170]

You're an ignorant fool if that's how you see things.

why did you cut out the whole comment to suit your narrative? You're ignorant if you think that videogames are more important than people being able to get food and not break the bank.

 

[DeepEnigma]

why did you cut out the whole comment to suit your narrative? You're ignorant if you think that videogames are more important than people being able to get food and not break the bank.

So write to your state reps. Complaining on a message board does nothing. Be proactive and the change you wish to see.

 

[Topher]

why did you cut out the whole comment to suit your narrative? You're ignorant if you think that videogames are more important than people being able to get food and not break the bank.

 

[IFireflyl]

Companies can do two things at the same time. They can resolve lingering management issues and still boost their first party lineup for more revenue, content for Gamepass and their mobile plans.

No. You don't resolve management issues by throwing new parties into the mix. That is a setup for failure.

Ironically, it does seem like acquired publishers won't exacerbate issues. We've heard nothing of any issues at Bethesda, for example, and the studios under BGS continue to run and function as normal under the pre-acquisition leadership. An acquired Activision would most likely function the same.

Leaving studios who know what they are doing to continue what they're doing isn't the issue. The issue is utilizing tech and information from the studios who know what they are doing to bolster the output and quality from studios who are underperforming. This is where Microsoft largely fails.

This seems really inaccurate, since we've long since known multiple examples of MS studios collaborating. Turn 10 and Playground share tech. Rare's shared their Sea of Thieves water tech with other studios. Coalition staff have provided support for Halo and consistently provide support to other studios using Unreal. Recent previews for Redfall express good impressions about the shooting…largely because Arkane has gotten significant support from iD software.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Playground Games and Turn 10 Studios collaboration is what needs to be done across all of their studios, as needed. This is an example of where they are doing something right, but this isn't the norm for Microsoft or its game studios. Also, Arkane working with iD Software was done long before Microsoft acquired either of them. That's an irrelevant point.

 

[TheGodfather07]

The distant third argument won't work for the CMA because xbox isn't distant 3rd in the UK. They ain't even that far behind. Besides consoles sales don't matter anymore and is an old metric right? It's all about subscription and cloud. That's the future Isn't it? Now people want to complain because regulators are looking into all aspects including cloud and subscriptions? Now only console sales matter again! Regulators don't know what they're doing!!

 

[DeepEnigma]

The distant third argument won't work for the CMA because xbox isn't distant 3rd in the UK. They ain't even that far behind. Besides consoles sales don't matter anymore and is an old metric right? It's all about subscription and cloud. That's the future Isn't it? Now people want to complain because regulators are looking into all aspects including cloud and subscriptions? Now only console sales matter again! Regulators don't know what they're doing!!

They only matter when they matter,

 

[TheGodfather07]

They only matter when they matter,

They were saying xbox would dominate the future with gamepass and xcloud even before the Activision acquisition. How much more of an advantage would Microsoft have if they had call of duty too? Funny how that narrative died and now poor Microsoft need a hand competing with Sony? Why are they protecting sony and not helping Microsoft!!

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I have done this before (and it largely went ignored), but let's put this into perspective:

Sony Acquisitions:
May 21, 1993 - Psygnosis
December 1, 2000 - Bend Studio
January 22, 2001 - Naughty Dog
August 7, 2002 - Incognito Entertainment
December 7, 2005 - Guerrilla Games
January 25, 2006 - Zipper Interactive
May 15, 2007 - Sigil Games Online Inc
September 20, 2007 - Evolution Studios, Bigbig Studios
March 2, 2010 - Media Molecule
August 2, 2011 - Sucker Punch Productions
January 8, 2019 - Audiokinetic
August 19, 2019 - Insomniac Games
June 29, 2021 - Housemarque
July 1, 2021 - Nixxes Software
September 8, 2021 - Firesprite
September 29, 2021 - Fabrik Games
September 30, 2021 - Bluepoint Games
December 10, 2021 - Valkyrie Entertainment
February 1, 2022 - Lasengle (gaming division of DelightWorks)
March 21, 2022 - Haven Studios
July 15, 2022 - Bungie
August 29, 2022 - Savage Game Studios

That is every video game acquisition by Sony to date. That is 22 acquisitions in almost 29 years, and over half of those were within the last five years. This is almost identical to Microsoft who is at 18 video game acquisitions in the same time frame (Activision Blizzard isn't being considered yet as the acquisition hasn't been approved).

Microsoft Acquisitions:
January 11, 1999 - FASA Interactive
April 19, 1999 - Access Software
June 19, 2000 - Bungie
December 5, 2000 - Digital Anvil
May 3, 2001 - Ensemble Studios
September 24, 2002 - Rare
April 6, 2006 - Lionhead Studios
October 12, 2011 - Twisted Pixel Games
June 5, 2012 - Press Play
November 6, 2014 - Mojang
June 11, 2018 - Ninja Theory
June 11, 2018 - Undead Labs
June 11, 2018 - Compulsion Games
June 11, 2018 - Playground Games
November 10, 2018 - inXile Entertainment
November 10, 2018 - Obsidian Entertainment
June 9, 2019 - Double Fine Productions
September 21, 2020 - ZeniMax Media

Sony acquired 1 entity when they jumped into video games. That was Psygnosis. When Microsoft jumped into video games, they acquired 6 different studios (FASA Interactive, Access Software, Bungie, Digital Anvil, Ensemble Studios, and Rare) before they released the Xbox. By the time Xbox was released, Sony had made 4 total acquisitions (Psygnosis, Bend Studio, Naughty Dog, and Incognito Entertainment). From 1993 until the beginning of 2003 (a decade) Sony had made 4 acquisitions, while Xbox made 7 acquisitions prior to launch.

Let's talk about the elephant in the room: Psygnosis. Psygnosis was a publisher, it's true. But it wasn't anywhere close to the behemoth that is Activision Blizzard. Psygnosis was acquired for less than $25,000,000. Even adjusted for inflation, the entire acquisition was around $50,000,000. For perspective, the Activision Blizzard acquisition is approximately 1,380 times larger than the Psygnosis acquisition. You can't honestly compare these two. Even the Zenimax acquisition is much larger than the Psygnosis acquisition, and there was far less outcry over Zenimax's acquisition than there has been for Activision Blizzard. Also, Psygnosis titles were made for different platforms even after their acquisition. 1998-2000 saw that reduced to mostly PlayStation, but Sony didn't do what Microsoft did with Zenimax and just cancel the games currently in development for opposing platforms. Oh, and Sony's acquisition of Pysgnosis cost less than Microsoft's acquisition of Bungie. Just so you have that piece of information.

Stop saying or implying that Psygnosis somehow paved the way for Activision Blizzard. That is a false equivalency, and anyone with more than 50 brain cells can see that. The playing field between Microsoft and Sony, in terms of total studios, is more than adequate for Microsoft. They own more studios than Sony, even without the Activision Blizzard acquisition. They don't need Activision Blizzard. They need to work on their studio management. Sony works closely with their studios, and their studios share resources (knowledge, practices, et cetera). Microsoft's studios almost function like individual, walled-off gardens, and Microsoft seems to expect their studios to sink or swim on their own instead of working with the studios, and bringing support from Studio A to Studio B.

This isn't just my opinion in a vacuum. There have been articles written on this, such as this one:

https://gamingbolt.com/what-is-going-on-with-xbox-game-studios



Microsoft needs to manage what it has. Adding more studios isn't going to fix their mismanagement issue: it's going to exacerbate it.

I didn't mention Psygnosis. The only person who seems to be harping on that deal here is you. And thanks for the long list, but we all already knew they both have made a lot of acquisitions.

 

[ToadMan]

Neither the EC or CMA would act otherwise even if Bethesda games were kept multiplatform. The COD IP is too big and the SLC potential would still exist.

There's a reason why they aren't talking about any other ABK IP in their statements of objection.

Yet the CMA and FTC are both referring to MS behavior following the Zeni acquisition.

 

[ToadMan]

We've seen minecraft dungeons and legends go multiplat

Yes we have. Because MS treat Mojang differently.

Which is another reason why this ABK deal is blocked.

 

[IFireflyl]

I didn't mention Psygnosis. The only person who seems to be harping on that deal here is you. And thanks for the long list, but we all already knew they both have made a lot of acquisitions.

I thought you had been talking about Psygnosis specifically. I apologize for misinterpreting what you were referring to. Having said that, you still keep trying to push blame for acquisitions on Sony, but the details shows that Microsoft was far more aggressive with acquisitions than Sony was from the very beginning. The majority of Sony's acquisitions were with companies that they were working closely with prior to acquisition. I do not believe that the same can be said of Microsoft's acquisitions.

 

[Ozriel]

Yet the CMA and FTC are both referring to MS behavior following the Zeni acquisition.

Not in the context of it being deceitful, more in the context of the possibility of MS taking COD exclusive.

It's this skepticism that Microsoft aims to resolve with behavioral access remedies, backed by binding contracts.

No matter how MS handled Bethesda, an SLC would still have been under discussion and Sony would still have pushed back against the deal, necessitating regulator intervention.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I thought you had been talking about Psygnosis specifically. I apologize for misinterpreting what you were referring to. Having said that, you still keep trying to push blame for acquisitions on Sony, but the details shows that Microsoft was far more aggressive with acquisitions than Sony was from the very beginning. The majority of Sony's acquisitions were with companies that they were working closely with prior to acquisition. I do not believe that the same can be said of Microsoft's acquisitions.

I'm not blaming anyone, there's nothing wrong with acquiring studios.

And it's irrelevant that Sony had been working with the studios to make exclusive games before buying them. If MS had paid Bethesda to make Redfall and Starfield Xbox/PC exclusive and THEN bought them, would that make any difference? No, it's just a silly thing people cling to so they can say this about Sony buying studios:

 

[DeepEnigma]

Studios =/= Largest 3rd party publishers for 30-40+ years.

Intellectual dishonesty. Hence why regulators don't step in with studio purchases.

 

[Ozriel]

No. You don't resolve management issues by throwing new parties into the mix. That is a setup for failure.

Acquired publishers are run separate from XGS, keeping their own management structure intact. You think Bethesda's being set up for failure?

Leaving studios who know what they are doing to continue what they're doing isn't the issue. The issue is utilizing tech and information from the studios who know what they are doing to bolster the output and quality from studios who are underperforming. This is where Microsoft largely fails. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Playground Games and Turn 10 Studios collaboration is what needs to be done across all of their studios, as needed. This is an example of where they are doing something right, but this isn't the norm for Microsoft or its game studios.

There's no evidence that XGS studios are siloed off from each other, or that support isn't forthcoming. I mentioned Coalition providing support for 343, Rare sharing water tech with Playground and even Rare sharing water tech for the Xbox port of PUBG. Where do you get the idea that this isn't the norm? It wasn't more than a few months ago that we learnt that Coalition was also providing support to Undead Labs for State of Decay 3.
The mismanagement issues with Halo - for example - had nothing to do with a lack of support from sister studios.

Also, Arkane working with iD Software was done long before Microsoft acquired either of them. That's an irrelevant point.

Actually quite relevant, when you think about it, since it shows collaboration doesn't cease post acquisition. Why would you expect an ActivisionBlizzardKing subsidiary of Microsoft games to suddenly end their culture of collaboration post acquisition?

 

[Ozriel]

Studios =/= Largest 3rd party publishers for 30-40+ years.

Intellectual dishonesty. Hence why regulators don't step in with studio purchases.

Regulators don't care about Studios vs Publishers. They care about possible input foreclosure and SLC as a result of acquisition.

If you had a studio with IP the level of COD, Fortnite et al, they'd step in.

 

[IFireflyl]

I'm not blaming anyone, there's nothing wrong with acquiring studios.

And it's irrelevant that Sony had been working with the studios to make exclusive games before buying them. If MS had paid Bethesda to make Redfall and Starfield Xbox/PC exclusive and THEN bought them, would that make any difference? No, it's just a silly thing people cling to so they can say this about Sony buying studios:

I am against the acquisition of most studios, irrespective of whether it is Microsoft, Nintendo, or Sony who is doing the acquiring. I don't like the idea of mega-corporations gobbling up all of the smaller players, and that's a primary reason I would like this blocked. The only time I don't really care is when a studio that is being acquired is almost always making games for the place acquiring them in the first place. For example, if Sony were to acquire Square Enix, I don't see how that would impact the market since 99% of Square Enix's output is exclusive to Sony anyway. Although that could just be due to exclusivity agreements, and I absolutely loathe those. I guess there's just a lot of things that irritate me. I'm a curmudgeon.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Regulators don't care about Studios vs Publishers. They care about possible input foreclosure and SLC as a result of acquisition.

If you had a studio with IP the level of COD, Fortnite et al, they'd step in.

Yes. They do. Hence why they are getting involved now and not for the countless studios both MS and Sony purchased in the past.

 

[DarkMage619]

"You see right honorable judge, Nintendo competes for the same sales as Xbox and PlayStation because I saw forum members say xbox is in third. How could regulators be so stupid!?"

Yup it was forum members on a gaming site that determined Nintendo's participation in the gaming industry not their existence in that marketplace before Sony and MS entered it. Right. CADE is hardly a forum member yet they managed to figure it out.

 

[Ozriel]

Yes. They do. Hence why they are getting involved now and not for the countless studios both MS and Sony purchased in the past.

They are getting involved now because of the size and market impact of Call of Duty franchise.

As far as the CMA and EC is concerned, there's absolutely no problem for the market if MS made every other Activision IP exclusive post acquisition.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They are getting involved now because of the size and market impact of Call of Duty franchise.

As far as the CMA and EC is concerned, there's absolutely no problem for the market if MS made every other Activision IP exclusive post acquisition.

FTC is getting involved for more than just CoD, because this is the largest third party publisher after already purchasing and foreclosing games on one of the largest third party publishers prior.

If this was a sole developer, they would pay no mind. Again, the post that I quoted is still relevant to my original post replying to it,

Studios =/= Largest 3rd party publishers for 30-40+ years.

Intellectual dishonesty. Hence why regulators don't step in with studio purchases.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Yup it was forum members on a gaming site that determined Nintendo's participation in the gaming industry not their existence in that marketplace before Sony and MS entered it. Right. CADE is hardly a forum member yet they managed to figure it out.

Xbox says Nintendo and Sony no longer main rivals

Xbox chief Phil Spencer says he now considers Amazon and Google to be bigger competition.

www.bbc.com

Microsoft Says Nintendo Isn’t Competing Against Other Consoles

Microsoft’s marketing director of France, Cedrick Delmas has told reporters that Nintendo isn’t looking to compete against other console manufactures, and other console manufactures aren’t looking to…

mynintendonews.com

Here is a Nintendo one for good measure:

Sony and Microsoft Are Not Our Competitors, Says Nintendo Exec

gamingbolt.com

Now STFU with your intellectually dishonest narratives.

 

[IFireflyl]

Acquired publishers are run separate from XGS, keeping their own management structure intact. You think Bethesda's being set up for failure?

Do I think Bethesda is being intentionally set up for failure? No. Do I fear that it will fail or deteriorate under Microsoft's leadership? Yes.

There's no evidence that XGS studios are siloed off from each other, or that support isn't forthcoming. I mentioned Coalition providing support for 343, Rare sharing water tech with Playground and even Rare sharing water tech for the Xbox port of PUBG. Where do you get the idea that this isn't the norm? It wasn't more than a few months ago that we learnt that Coalition was also providing support to Undead Labs for State of Decay 3.
The mismanagement issues with Halo - for example - had nothing to do with a lack of support from sister studios.

The mismanagement in general is what I was talking about. Yes, part of that mismanagement included studios collaborating. But you're honing in on a small part of what I said and ignoring everything else. Microsoft is bad at managing their studios. Rare had no focus on Everwild, and the 2019 pre-production game went through a reboot in 2021 and has pushed the release date to 2024 (although that it still an optimistic date). Half of The Initiative's core development team for the Perfect Dark reboot left over a 12-month period. 343 Industries was gutted. Undead Labs has had State of Decay 3 in pre-production since 2018, and former employees stated that Microsoft's hands-off approach allowed dysfunction within the organization. It's awesome that you think that Coalition helping Undead Labs is great, but that isn't all that is required for good management.

Actually quite relevant, when you think about it, since it shows collaboration doesn't cease post acquisition. Why would you expect an ActivisionBlizzardKing subsidiary of Microsoft games to suddenly end their culture of collaboration post acquisition?

Arkane and iD Software were both under the Zenimax umbrella. As you stated, Microsoft is essentially letting them do their own thing, so why would they change it up and stop collaborating? This makes no sense.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

You don't understand... Back then Sony didn't even want to meet with Bill Gates. They thought of him as the enemy and the only true competitor that Sony couldn't beat. They hated Gates and Windows before Xbox was thought of. Xbox came after these talks broke down. Xbox was partnering with Sega on Dreamcast details (like networking and Windows CE OS) in the Dreamcast. MS wasn't gong to enter the gaming market until Sony threaten Windows. The thought of no Windows is what shifted Xbox in high gear from idea drawing boards to reality! The PS2 was that fear. You gotta remember or read more. These details are in black and white. Alot of the articles are gone now but, the PS2 tech still shows the fact it had a Linux OS to challenge Windows. Sony even promoted the PS2 as the next home computer and who needs Windows when you have a PS2. These are facts on the matter look below. Sony scared Microsoft into action about its place in gaming!

No, you have it mistaken. Microsoft were scared of PlayStation, not the other way around. They were worried that the PS2 would replace the PC, which was Microsoft's domain with Windows. That is the main reason they pushed through with development of the (Direct)Xbox: to stop Sony and the PS2 from taking over the living room and displacing the PC.

The point is Microsoft's intentions to work with Sony, if they were ever really true, were to act as a leash on Sony and prevent PlayStation from being a threat to Windows. Their motivation in that regard was much different from Sony's working with Nintendo on the SNES sound chip, or the Play Station, because Sony never felt threatened by Nintendo to displace CD technology. If anything, they thought working with Nintendo on the Play Station would have been a way to secure their place in the CD revolution for computing against other rivals like Panasonic/Matsushita and Philips, who launched their own CD gaming systems and failed. Sony felt they would have met a similar fate, that's why they were content in partnering with Nintendo until Nintendo backstabbed them publicly in the most embarrassing way.

I don't blame Microsoft for making Xbox to protect their presence in PC with Windows, or to keep PC gaming from being completely drowned out by consoles that had no similarity with PC game development APIs (namely Microsoft's) or hardware at the time. Keep in mind the Wintel partnership was still extremely strong during that period and if MIPS-based processors took over to the point where PC-like devices with MIPS processors started to replace x86-based PCs, that whole Wintel domination would be destroyed, and that probably terrified Microsoft.

So no, I don't blame them for wanting to protect what they felt was in jeopardy. I'm just telling you that the motivating reasons for Microsoft joining as a platform holder are a LOT different than why Sony did. Microsoft's reasons were a lot more selfish.

"Sony released a Linux-based operating system, Linux for PlayStation 2, for the PS2 in a package that also includes a keyboard, mouse, Ethernet adapter and HDD. In Europe and Australia, the PS2 comes with a free Yabasic interpreter on the bundled demo disc. This allows users to create simple programs for the PS2. A port of the NetBSD project and BlackRhino GNU/Linux, an alternative Debian-based distribution, are also available for the PS2."

"Optional hardware includes additional DualShock or DualShock 2 controllers, a PS2 DVD remote control, an internal or external hard disk drive (HDD), a network adapter, horizontal and vertical stands, PlayStation or PS2 memory cards, the multitap for PlayStation or PS2, a USB motion camera (EyeToy), a USB keyboard and mouse, and a headset."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_2#:~:text=Sony released a Linux -based operating

Its seems stupid now but, Sony didn't think that in 2000...

Sony even had a Printer for the PS2 in 2002!!!

https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/01/18/sony-releases-new-ps2-printer

It's easy to forget all this stuff because the articles aren't there anymore and black then we read magazines like PSX, Gamefan and Next-gen!

I mean, I could find the articles through Archive.org most likely, but anyway...

You're listing all this stuff like Sony were gung-ho on displacing PC and Windows, and that these were the reason Microsoft "had" to join as a platform holder with Xbox. But it's not like PS2 was the first console to do most of this stuff. I'm pretty sure there were PC cards for the PC-FX and accompanying software so that you could make your own PC-FX games that way. There were similar packages for the Super Famicom and Genesis/MegaDrive.

Consoles like the SNES, Genesis, Famicom, Saturn etc. had printer support too. There were keyboard and mouse peripherals for consoles going back to at least the early '90s, quite a few from platform holders themselves. Dreamcast had planned support for a ZIP disk drive, had a built-in modem, the VMUs, KB & M, headsets etc. too...by that logic were Sega trying to displace Windows and PC, too?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

What makes those any different than MS? The arguments against MS buying it mostly applies to all the other corporations as well as far as im aware.

I can agree with this. Another big tech snagging a divested COD/Activision isn't fundamentally different in terms of the concerns as MS acquiring ABK with no COD/Activision divestiture.

The only way that divestiture works is if they can work as their own company. But I don't see an issue with say Amazon, Google, Tencent etc. (or any other company or investment group) buying shares in a divested COD/Activision is Microsoft themselves are able to retain shares in it.

Killing competition from 3rd place, right. And it's not even a close 3rd place.

Stop with this BS. Xbox money isn't buying ABK; Microsoft money is. Microsoft is a $2 trillion conglomerate. Windows, Azure, Office, Surface and other related fields make up 90+% of their annual net profits. Xbox's profits are an absolute blip on the radar by comparison.

Since Microsoft money is being used to buy ABK, then it's a case of a $2 trillion conglomerate looking to spend $69 billion on a publisher to "compete" with a $100 billion competitor. If you're wondering why regulators are giving so many side eyes to this deal, THAT'S why.

 

[64gigabyteram]

Stop with this BS. Xbox money isn't buying ABK; Microsoft money is. Microsoft is a $2 trillion conglomerate. Windows, Azure, Office, Surface and other related fields make up 90+% of their annual net profits. Xbox's profits are an absolute blip on the radar by comparison.

why does Microsoft need to specifically use Xbox profits to justify a purchase of a company for the xbox division????

 

[Three]

why does Microsoft need to specifically use Xbox profits to justify a purchase of a company for the xbox division????

He's not saying they can't. He's saying that the ability to lower competition comes from places where they aren't "3rd place" meaning they can afford this $70B where others can't.

 

[feynoob]

I find it weird that DarkMage619 has been in this forum since 2004.

 

[SoloKingRobert]

How about the much simpler solution of ABK remaining independent, MS you can't buy ABK.

Activision Blizzard wanted to be sold in the first place.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Activision Blizzard wanted to be sold in the first place.

I don't think that's the point.

 

[The Pleasure]

I imagine phil spencer looking for acquisitions like this

 

[Dolomite]

So when this deal passes what should we fight over next

This is shamefully entertaining w/almost 1k pages of good times

 

[poppabk]

He's not saying they can't. He's saying that the ability to lower competition comes from places where they aren't "3rd place" meaning they can afford this $70B where others can't.

MS money bought the entire Xbox division, just like Sony money bought the entire playstation division. Only Nintendo have a centuries long gaming tradition and grew their business organically.

 

[wolffy71]

Why would you play xbox games via cloud on an xbox at the moment? The whole point is that you would play them on other devices when you can't locally.

You don't need to download them.

Real use case. The other day there was about 5 of us online and we couldn't agree on a multiplayer game to play.

So we tried a few games each of a couple different games via cloud gaming.

Literally go to the gamepass section, find game, click cloud, and ur gaming. Played battlefield and few other games for a bit.

Downloading would have seriously slowed that down.

FYI we settled on a few games of AOE

And no, we didn't have any issues with it