I am not comparing it to that. I am just saying taking specific content is much shittier than just normal timed exclusive.Don't get mad the two are not the same. Taking away games is a bigger dick move and that's something that both have done.
Who says that it was ok?But it was OK when Microsoft did it.
Good, you are showing why these stuff are not good for the industry.
It’s almost like it’s standard stuff.
nah, that's (the JTFC and US senators) just boring posturing imo.Is this whst the Japanese stuff was about today? Lol
Fuck da po-liceLadies and lads. Will I get into trouble if I post my Resetera Xbox Fanboy tier list? Just got back from my 2 week ban after posting the Neogaf version.
I would imagine expanding their audience should be a priority now they’re lamenting about sales underperformance of many of their titles. But Square’s been making weird decisions lately, so…
I just image a bunch of people playing their switches in room and one person looks up for a sec and says “ yeah whatever “ and then continues playing.![]()
Also, regarding the Call of Duty series, which is the globally popular game software of the Activision Group, there are many games that are more popular in Japan. For this reason, the company group's position in the business of developing and publishing games for game consoles is considered to have a limited impact on competition in the market for the multi-game subscription service business for game consoles. Therefore, even if the indirect network effect is taken into consideration, the company group concerned does not have the ability to implement the closure of inputs. Therefore, it is recognized that the closure of inputs will not cause the problem of market closure or exclusivity in the downstream market.I just image a bunch of people playing their switches in room and one person looks up for a sec and says “ yeah whatever “ and then continues playing.![]()
Does that mean MS can technically make COD exclusive in Japan?Also, regarding the Call of Duty series, which is the globally popular game software of the Activision Group, there are many games that are more popular in Japan. For this reason, the company group's position in the business of developing and publishing games for game consoles is considered to have a limited impact on competition in the market for the multi-game subscription service business for game consoles. Therefore, even if the indirect network effect is taken into consideration, the company group concerned does not have the ability to implement the closure of inputs. Therefore, it is recognized that the closure of inputs will not cause the problem of market closure or exclusivity in the downstream market.
Pretty much.
They already signed a Switch contract. Doubt it's market specificDoes that mean MS can technically make COD exclusive in Japan?
It's probably worse, but not by that much. In a digital market accustomed to the immediacy of things, purposely delaying a title for one year is very damaging for the impacted platform. It creates a sense of frustration or even uncertainty about the platform future, all of it at a small fraction of the cost of making it fully exclusive. So, I don't buy the narrative that "full exclusive" is bad, but "timed exclusive" are OK. Legislator should put an end to these practices.I am not comparing it to that. I am just saying taking specific content is much shittier than just normal timed exclusive.
That is how the gaming industry has ran for decades.It's probably worse, but not by that much. In a digital market accustomed to the immediacy of things, purposely delaying a title for one year is very damaging for the impacted platform. It creates a sense of frustration or even uncertainty about the platform future, all of it at a small fraction of the cost of making it fully exclusive. So, I don't buy the narrative that "full exclusive" is bad, but "timed exclusive" are OK. Legislator should put an end to these practices.
Nintendo signed a COD deal so no.Does that mean MS can technically make COD exclusive in Japan?
Which doesn’t mean a change wouldn’t be welcome or even necessary…That is how the gaming industry has ran for decades.
That sounds crazy to me. Especially when that specific content is timed anyway. I don't see any instance where timed exclusive content can be said to be shittier than a timed exclusive game. It's even worse when you realise that the latter includes games that are live service like PUBG, Valheim, Fall Guys, ARK2 etc.I am not comparing it to that. I am just saying taking specific content is much shittier than just normal timed exclusive.
Taking a certain content from live service is not a good thing, since it's important to have those content day1 in those games.
The problem is many devs rely on it for funding at the indie level.Which doesn’t mean a change wouldn’t be welcome or even necessary…
Not only that. Controlling the exclusivity practices and deals may be impossible or very difficult. But 780 pages testify that this is a real issue. We wouldn’t be discussing mergers and acquisitions if the exclusivities, timed or not, were a moot point. What we see is the market reacting to this model.The problem is many devs rely on it for funding at the indie level.
All those day 1 Game Pass indies would vanish overnight.Not only that. Controlling the exclusivity practices and deals may be impossible or very difficult. But 780 pages testify that this is a real issue. We wouldn’t be discussing mergers and acquisitions if the exclusivities, timed or not, were a moot point. What we see is the market reacting to this model.
Not really. As I've heard over the past week a few times "it was never announced for that console"Not only that. Controlling the exclusivity practices and deals may be impossible or very difficult. But 780 pages testify that this is a real issue. We wouldn’t be discussing mergers and acquisitions if the exclusivities, timed or not, were a moot point. What we see is the market reacting to this model.
Not only that. Controlling the exclusivity practices and deals may be impossible or very difficult. But 780 pages testify that this is a real issue. We wouldn’t be discussing mergers and acquisitions if the exclusivities, timed or not, were a moot point. What we see is the market reacting to this model.
For tmed exclusive games, you are at least getting full product at a later time.That sounds crazy to me. Especially when that specific content is timed anyway. I don't see any instance where timed exclusive content can be said to be shittier than a timed exclusive game. It's even worse when you realise that the latter includes games that are live service like PUBG, Valheim, Fall Guys, ARK2 etc.
Because it was back then, nobody was really complaining about xbox timed exclusive content for GTA, COD, FIFA or anything. They were actually gloating, didn't care or were secretly hoping Sony would die from it.Who says that it was ok?
That's ridiculous, you get the missing content at a later time much like you do the missing entire game.For tmed exclusive games, you are at least getting full product at a later time.
While timed content, you are getting inferior product, even though you spent the same money as the other platform user, all because MS/Sony decided they wanted to be a dick about it.
Nobody was complaining? My God, you should have seen the Neogaf threads about it at the time…
Those receipts though.Because it was back then, nobody was really complaining about xbox timed exclusive content for GTA, COD, FIFA or anything. They were actually gloating, didn't care or were secretly hoping Sony would die from it.
That's ridiculous, you get the missing content at a later time much like you do the missing entire game.
I did at the time and even posted some in the post you quoted.Nobody was complaining? My God, you should have seen the Neogaf threads about it at the time…
I am not comparing it to that. I am just saying taking specific content is much shittier than just normal timed exclusive.
Taking a certain content from live service is not a good thing, since it's important to have those content day1 in those games.
Destiny 1 is clear example of that.
Who says that it was ok?
Never heard about COD DLC last gen and never really heard about it this genNobody was complaining? My God, you should have seen the Neogaf threads about it at the time…
Ladies and lads. Will I get into trouble if I post my Resetera Xbox Fanboy tier list? Just got back from my 2 week ban after posting the Neogaf version.
MS is just learning from the best though.Good, you are showing why these stuff are not good for the industry.
Both MS and Sony are shit for doing that.
MS is just learning from the best though.
Nintendo did it. Sega did it's Sony did it. MS did itMicrosoft was inventing tactics like these long before Sony or Microsoft entered the console business
Because it was back then, nobody was really complaining about xbox timed exclusive content for GTA, COD, FIFA or anything. They were actually gloating, didn't care or were secretly hoping Sony would die from it.
That's ridiculous, you get the missing content at a later time much like you do the missing entire game.
Sony were advertising exclusivity on the box? colour me surprised.As Sony has done with PS exclusive advertising or stickers all over the software boxes. both as bad as each other
Sony were advertising exclusivity on the box? colour me surprised.
not sure how that's relevant to users not only being Ok with exclusive content but gloating and hoping Playstation fails. Again, I guess the tag really is accurate even when there is no relevance.