Support NeoGAF

[adamsapple]

who is he?
influencer?

You're the one who posted the tweet about it, and you don't know ?

 

[mansoor1980]

You're the one who posted the tweet about it, and you don't know ?

i only care about the tweet from LULU goddamnit
clearly she is full of joy

 

[DarkMage619]

Whoosh, way to miss the point entirely.

You never had a point.

Not just a different developer, you mean every single third party developer out there who didn't hold updates back to push their platform or something to benefit their console. I wonder what we're discussing? MS having an incentive to degrade software on other platforms perhaps.

So? Cross platform play was something MS wanted for their title and they are entitled to have their game work the way they want it to. Sony got on board and they got the update. There was nothing degrading except Sony backwards policy on cross platform play. Thankfully they reversed a bad policy.

Nearly identical is what MLB is too. The teirs are just an DX12 nomenclature that can be done on PS5 in software and get very similar results. Other third party games did already.

There is no excuse for a 6 year old console to outperform a 2 year old one. Especially when the new system has far more capable hardware. It is hypocritical to complain about potential downgraded software when you can't muster better performance on a newer platform.

Anyway, PS4 pro and xbox one x have better texture fillrate and some lower settings than XSS too but I don't see you complaining about that being the reason XSS might perform at a lower framerate in specific scenarios vs Xbox one X and PS4 pro versions of MLB the show.

I am pointing out Sony hypocrisy. You are the one defending the indefensible.

Why does the Xbox One X version beat the XSS in the same scenarios on MLB?

Sony's lack of optimization.

Where did I say platforms are entitled to software? Don't be such a clown. I'm just giving you the examples you asked for, Inferior versions of games on other platforms. Now you're trying to deflect with some nonsense about how they are not entitled to better versions. Nobody was saying they are, they are saying MS can and has done that. You're here saying it's their IP and they're entitled to. No shit.

You are the one complaining about PlayStation not getting upgraded Hellblade like the platform is entitled to it. You can't point to any examples of MS degrading PlayStation releases and now you start insulting people. The clown title suits you quite well. There is no deflection just more rejection of the horrible points you have made and now you are getting emotional about it.

Oh you mean like maximising proceeds from TLOU on PC. Oh wait that's a Sony title, that must be different. Explains why you're complaining about that one in particular.

TLOU title with horrible performance on PC? That's the example you went to? It's clear that Sony and MS have different goals when it comes to multi-platform development. MS PC titles hit day and date as console most of the time. Sony treats PC more like an after thought and it shows by their latest release. Again more do as I say not as do from the market leader but of course you don't have a problem with that.

Just shut up man. You were talking about minor framerate differences in replays for MLB over several pages. I point you to massive platform differences that amount to double the framerate 120fps, 4k, HDR and raytracing and now you're erecting this "no bugs" strawman when talking about inferior sofware on other platforms. I guess now sony isn't being hypocritical too because their games aren't buggy on xbox either.

Take your own advice. You can't even make a coherent point without name calling. All the accusations you make of others fit you perfectly and it's a classic example of projection. Sony is spewing nonsense about bugs being placed in their games and you are spewing nonsense defending them. Perfect match.

 

[feynoob]

R reksveks
What will happen if CMA publishers their final provisions before MS earnings call?

 

[Three]

Starfield won't have that much loss, because of the SP mode, and the fact that MS can recover lost sales from 3rd party sales (those who switched to Xbox).
To have a substantial loss, you need long term sales vs long term loss in that period.
For SP games, their price gets depreciate fast, which negates loss sales over period of time.

I don't think the depreciating cost of the game is an issue to lost sales even for SP games because they are known to be mainly frontloaded. In todays market you go for expanding spending instead. The land-and-expand strategy for customers.

Horizon Forbidden West released with sales for around a year, landed on PS+ Extra and is releasing Burning Shores DLC. This DLC is is long term income that's ignored by looking at premium sales only. This is the same for Bethesda games. You could even argue they pioneered it with horse armour and their numerous expansions.

$50 is the 70% cut Microsoft makes from a $70 game.

Ah, that makes sense.

With MTX and DLC, the losses from not releasing on Playstation grow for sure. However, the life time value of new customers on Xbox also grow.

That they do but over 5yrs you have used the constant sub revenue vs premium game sales revenue loss that would be frontloaded to a single year mostly. With a higher reoccurring revenue from 90% over those 5 yrs vs 10% it would amount to a lot more.

Life time value of a new customer does take into account spending habits across the entire ecosystem. However, since we do not have this data, it's easier just to simplify the LTV to a year of base tier Gamepass.


I don't think Starfield will have a live service type nature where MTX make up a significant amount of ongoing revenue. Maybe if Bethesda tries to reintroduce paid mods... m

It doesn't need a live service nature, though I suspect it will have both horse armour type mtx with ships, and skins as well as expansions. Just look at elder scrolls expansions alone.

Those expansions were $20-30 each and within 1 year of the games main release, $60 game + three $20-30 expansions with horse armour on top.

It's just simplifying because we don't have the data on average MTX/DLC spend on a game like Skyrim or Fallout 4. And we don't have the average LTV spend of an early adopter to the Xbox ecosystem.

It would be included in the LTV it isn't included in the premium game sales losses or subs.

I'm pretty sure first party DLC is included on Gamepass for free. (Which works against a higher LTV, depending on the mix of Gamepass subscribers and non-subs)

No it's not, they charge for them.

FH5 Hot wheels $20, FH5: Rally Adventure $20.

They did give free DLC before or in the case of Gears Hivebusters only those who paid for gamepass ultimate but they have started to shift to a strategy of charging for DLC. It makes the LTV even less reliable because they can expand whenever they are not in a growth phase and they've used 2021 LTV when they had low spending growth phases.

They are expanding spending though. It's their whole land-and-expand gamepass strategy.

I don't think Grounded has any Microtransactions, at least not on Gamepass. Which is weird cause it is a live service game.


I think the strategy isn't just get a sub and they're more likely to buy MTX, but get a sub and keep that sub. Part of doing that is just offering a great game that doesn't feel like it's just nickel and dimeing you.

But most games are selling mtx and DLC. Sea of Thieves, Halo infinite , Forza Horizon 5, Gears 5, Flight Simulator . I can't think of many games that don't. Grounded might be one of the few exception but I'm not sure if that's a big budget game. it only recently came out of early access might see it coming sooner or later if the numbers are there. I honestly would be very surprised if Starfield didn't get dlc expansions or mtx within 2 yrs of release. We'll see.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Microsoft and Sony provide data and any research they've done to back up said data (Gamer surveys). The CMA also does their own research to get their own data. It's the CMA's job to parse out what data they use and how.

I don't get your "email inbox" line as the overwhelming majority of public and industry participant emails have been in support of the deal.


Microsoft says they aren't incentivized to take CoD off Playstation because it would be financially illogical. The CMA in their PF found that Microsoft would be incentivized to make CoD exclusive because in the long run, it would be profitable to do so. However, the CMA used mathematical errors to come to that conclusion. Once corrected, the CMA sides with Microsoft in that they believe it wouldn't make sense to make CoD exclusive.


The CMA didn't just go with the latest data from Microsoft. They decided what data to use and how and which suggestions to ignore. Ex: Microsoft wanted the LTV to be averaged out between early and late adopters' spending habits. The CMA disagreed and said those likely to switch consoles would more closely resemble an early adopter's spending habits. (Therefore increasing the LTV) Something that works against Microsoft.


They used their own model when deciding there was no console SLC.

And 3/4 of public emails were in favour of the deal going through. Your confirmation bias is showing when you say every console gamer knows there is an SLC.


It's the CMA's job to parse out what data to use and how. Seemingly, with what they've used, they've come to the conclusion that there is no console SLC. I don't think they're scheming to pull the rug out from under Microsoft last minute. I think they honestly made a mathematical error, and when fixed they came to a different conclusion.

The "email inbox" point was about the irregular situation of general public (gamers) bombarding them with anti-acquisition emails because this acquisition is clearly a move to foreclose, just like all the Gaf takes from the beginning, right up until regulation became the topic and then those saying PlayStation was doomed started repeated the Microsoft corporate line. If you are telling me of the non-industry emails they received more in favour of the deal, then that's even more puzzling than the industry emails by majority supporting consolidation.

As for the CMA and data here's the case from the article I linked that shows the latitude they have with the CAT.

In Tobii/Smartbox,[12] the merging parties supplied hardware, software, accessories and related services to enable people with speech, language and communication difficulties to communicate (known as augmentative and assistive communication solutions (AAC)). The CMA found—on the basis of both horizontal and vertical theories of harm—that the merger would give rise to an SLC as a result of reductions in the existing product range and quality, less new product development, and higher prices. It ordered Tobii to sell Smartbox.

Tobii challenged the CMA's decision before the CAT arguing that the CMA had: (i) breached its duty of procedural fairness by refusing to disclose to Tobii and/or its external advisers relevant evidence which formed the basis of the CMA's findings, (ii) failed properly to define the market for AAC solutions, and (iii) failed to support its SLC findings with relevant, reliable, and sufficient evidence due to material errors in the CMA's collection of evidence.[13]

The CAT rejected the majority of Tobii's grounds. First, it rejected the submission that the CMA had failed to provide Tobii with sufficient evidence because, having reviewed the evidence, the CAT considered Tobii had enough information to understand the gist of the case. Second, it found that the CMA had properly defined the market for AAC solutions, including because, on the facts of the case, the CMA was not under a duty to ask customers how they would respond to a 5 to 10% price increase (the classic "SSNIP test") or take into account product differentiation when defining the market. Third, the CAT dismissed Tobii's challenge to the CMA's approach to the collection of evidence to support its SLC, restating that "the question of precisely where the line is drawn in determining whether an inquiry has gone far enough is an issue for the relevant authority to evaluate and the Tribunal will need to be shown a strong case to show that the relevant authority manifestly drew the line in the wrong place."[14]

Tobii succeeded, however, in demonstrating that the CMA's finding of harm to competition due to partial input foreclosure did not have a sufficient evidential basis. The CAT first restated that the CMA has a "wide margin of appreciation" as to the extent to which it is necessary to carry out investigations.[15] It nevertheless concluded that the CMA had failed to establish that the merged entity would have an incentive to engage in partial input foreclosure, in particular because it did not calculate the likely diversion ratio that would arise in a partial foreclosure scenario, or whether it would exceed the minimum diversion ratio that would make a partial foreclosure strategy profitable. This finding did not alter the outcome or legality of the CMA's decision, meaning that Tobii remained under a duty to sell Smartbox.

 

[Three]

TLOU title with horrible performance on PC? That's the example you went to?

Are you suffering from amnesia or what? You're the one who brought it up as the example of double standards:

It absolutely is a double standard and Sony should be called out for it. They also should be called out for the state of Last of US Part 1 on PC as well. And yes I'm aware they contacted it out but that doesn't absolve them of the responsibility to deliver quality software.

So answer the question. Why wouldn't Sony want to maximise proceeds on other platforms too but only altruistic MS does and that's why they would never? Wouldn't MS be entitled to make COD not get an update on PS6 because they own the IP? So is inferior software on competing platforms a real thing that can and has happened? You're ranting and it's like talking to a brick wall.

You can't even make a coherent point without name calling. All the accusations you make of others fit you perfectly and it's a classic example of projection. Sony is spewing nonsense about bugs being placed in their games and you are spewing nonsense defending them. Perfect match.

It's because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall that jumps to irrelevant points and misses the one being made.
It's futile. I'm not even going to respond to the tangents you're on now ranting about sony while praising MS wherever possible.

 

[BeardGawd]

To think a Trillion dollar company is going to spend 70 Billion just to try and hurt Sony when Console gaming makes up less tham 10% of the gaming market is ludicrous at best. It's always been obvious MS is gunning for Google, Apple and Amazon with this move.

 

[reksveks]

R reksveks
What will happen if CMA publishers their final provisions before MS earnings call?

Nothing much imo, I suspect MS might mention it in the call but it's not really going to have a material impact on the price yet. There would still be the EC announcement, SAMR and then what MS is planning to do with the FTC.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

The "email inbox" point was about the irregular situation of general public (gamers) bombarding them with anti-acquisition emails because this acquisition is clearly a move to foreclose, just like all the Gaf takes from the beginning, right up until regulation became the topic and then those saying PlayStation was doomed started repeated the Microsoft corporate line. If you are telling me of the non-industry emails they received more in favour of the deal, then that's even more puzzling than the industry emails by majority supporting consolidation.

That is what I'm saying.

As for the CMA and data here's the case from the article I linked that shows the latitude they have with the CAT

I'm not going to read too much into the case you posted, but it seems that the CMA made a decision, stuck to it. The dissenting party believed there wasn't enough evidence to suggest their findings and CAT disagreed.

I think it's pretty different from the Activision acquisition, as the CMA has come to a decision on the console SLC that is in Microsoft's favour. I don't think they'll reverse that decision out of the blue.

 

[DarkMage619]

Are you suffering from amnesia or what? You're the one who brought it up as the example of double standards:

I brought up Sony's hypocrisy yes. They make accusations about poor performing, bug ridden games on their platforms and they do the same thing they are projecting on others. Something you have in common with them. I can see why you defend them so strenuously.

So answer the question. Why wouldn't Sony want to maximise proceeds on other platforms too but only altruistic MS does and that's why they would never? Wouldn't MS be entitled to make COD not get an update on PS6 because they own the IP? So is inferior software on competing platforms a real thing that can and has happened? You're ranting and it's like talking to a brick wall.

Sony clearly doesn't care about PC nearly as much as console. MS has shown that they will support multiple consoles and platforms and there is no evidence of them making buggy games to hurt competitors. You can't even understand a simple point so I completely agree that you have quite a bit in common with a brick wall as well.

It's because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall that jumps to irrelevant points and misses the one being made.
It's futile. I'm not even going to respond to the tangents you're on now ranting about sony while praising MS wherever possible.

Blah, blah, blah more projection. Again you lack such self awareness that you do the same things you accuse others of except you swap the company. You can't even conduct a conversation civilly. But please continue to act as though you are holier than thou.

To think a Trillion dollar company is going to spend 70 Billion just to try and hurt Sony when Console gaming makes up less tham 10% of the gaming market is ludicrous at best. It's always been obvious MS is gunning for Google, Apple and Amazon with this move.

Indeed. Sony is hardly MS biggest concern now. You see that with the console sales comparisons as though MS hasn't already conceded they will never outsell Nintendo and Sony with consoles. If you can't outsell them on hardware use their hardware to continue to make money you can feed back on to your platform. MS doesn't even require you to buy their consoles to make money. It's actually pretty smart. MS was never taking CoD away from anyone and that was their position from the very beginning of this process.

 

[Bernardougf]

To think a Trillion dollar company is going to spend 70 Billion just to try and hurt Sony when Console gaming makes up less tham 10% of the gaming market is ludicrous at best. It's always been obvious MS is gunning for Google, Apple and Amazon with this move.

So they spend 8 billion to buy bethesda, immediately cancel the versions of redfall and starfiled for playstation and state that any new game for now on is xbox exclusive .. this helps them in their fight against google, apple and amazon in exactly what ?

 

[DeepEnigma]

So they spend 8 billion to buy bethesda, immediately cancel the versions of redfall and starfiled for playstation and state that any new game for now on is xbox exclusive .. this helps them in their fight against google, apple and amazon in exactly what ?

Please Understand™

Reasons™

 

[PaintTinJr]

That is what I'm saying.


I'm not going to read too much into the case you posted, but it seems that the CMA made a decision, stuck to it. The dissenting party believed there wasn't enough evidence to suggest their findings and CAT disagreed.

I think it's pretty different from the Activision acquisition, as the CMA has come to a decision on the console SLC that is in Microsoft's favour. I don't think they'll reverse that decision out of the blue.

Puzzling indeed IMO.

On the issue of data, that's where we differ. The CAT weren't making comment on the specifics, and having the gist of a case is all any party needs to be well enough informed in the view of the CAT.

In this process the CMA can show procedural evidence that both Microsoft and Sony understood the gist of the case by the CMA using each one's data in different "provisional" findings.

 

[BeardGawd]

So they spend 8 billion to buy bethesda, immediately cancel the versions of redfall and starfiled for playstation and state that any new game for now on is xbox exclusive .. this helps them in their fight against google, apple and amazon in exactly what ?

ABK is 10x the size of Bethesda. Redfall and Starfield are peanuts in the grand acheme of things. No where near comparable. The reasons they purchased Bethesda are completely different from the reasons they purchased ABK.

 

[feynoob]

Bethesda and Activision won't put a dent on Google and apple duopoly.
They are insignificant in mobile market.

 

[Bernardougf]

ABK is 10x the size of Bethesda. Redfall and Starfield are peanuts in the grand acheme of things. No where near comparable. The reasons they purchased Bethesda are completely different from the reasons they purchased ABK.

So wishfull thinking with facts from your ass at the moment ... ok got it

 

[Calverz]

Bethesda and Activision won't put a dent on Google and apple duopoly.
They are insignificant in mobile market.

Who is insignificant? Abk?

 

[reksveks]

Bethesda and Activision won't put a dent on Google and apple duopoly.
They are insignificant in mobile market.

King is probably one of the biggest western mobile app developers, it's not going to make a huge impact but it's one of the largest company that you could buy if you wanted to try and create a mobile app store.

I don't expect MS to break 5% but 5% is alot of money

 

[Varteras]

King is probably one of the biggest western mobile app developers, it's not going to make a huge impact but it's the largest company that you could buy if you wanted to try and create a mobile app store.

Without having their own mobile OS, which they tried and failed at, I'm having a hard time seeing a way forward that manages to dislodge Google or Apple.

 

[reksveks]

Without having their own mobile OS, which they tried and failed at, I'm having a hard time seeing a way forward that manages to dislodge Google or Apple.

It's a Hail Mary but remember that the DMA could make third party app stores more viable.

 

[feynoob]

Who is insignificant? Abk?

Both combined vs what apple and google has on the mobile market.

They need an app store that can attract big games and apps. It will take time and money for MS to do that. That is where the real money lies in.

 

[Calverz]

Both combined vs what apple and google has on the mobile market.

They need an app store that can attract big games and apps. It will take time and money for MS to do that. That is where the real money lies in.

Yea but they will have candy crush, Diablo immortal and cod mobile. That's a pretty big deal. Take them off google and apple stores and put them on their new store. It's not a leveller but I wouldn't call it insignificant either.

 

[Varteras]

It's a Hail Mary but remember that the DMA could make third party app stores more viable.

I would certainly have to agree that it's a hail mary. I have my doubts the DMA will be effective. Google already allows sideloading as it is but both companies seem determined to fight the act.

Has the Digital Markets Act got it wrong on app stores?

The app-store obligations in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act are unlikely to weaken the market power of Apple and Google.

www.bruegel.org

At the end of the day, depending on what their end goal is, we're talking about quite the long game that would eventually have to see MS once again attempt its own mobile OS. That would likely mean partnering with a phone manufacturer or creating their own again. At that point, they either have to close down any ability to be found on Google or Apple mobile OS's, or also allow both to be on theirs.

This would certainly allow MS to retain more of the revenue, but effectively combating the two giants of the mobile space who are incredibly ingrained into the market psyche? That's a taller order than their current console struggles.

Anecdotally speaking, virtually no one I know uses anything other than the stores native to their OS. None of them bothered to find ways around it all. I have a feeling that if Candy Crush disappeared from Google and Apple, an alternative would quickly be found on those stores. Mobile players, who are likely far more casual than console players, probably wouldn't spend much time looking for, nor be much aware of, an alternative store. That's not even suggesting that they completely switch phone brands and OS's just to play Diablo Immortal.

 

[Jimmyisback]

Brazil has passed it.
Saudi Arabia has passed it.
China has passed it.
Japan has passed it.
Chile has passed it
Serbia has passed it.

Lets go cma. We are waiting!!! Pass it already. Its inevitable.

 

[reksveks]

I would certainly have to agree that it's a hail mary. I have my doubts the DMA will be effective. Google already allows sideloading as it is but both companies seem determined to fight the act.

http://[URL]https://www.bruegel.org/blog-post/has-digital-markets-act-got-it-wrong-app-stores

[/URL]

At the end of the day, depending on what their end goal is, we're talking about quite the long game that would eventually have to see MS once again attempt its own mobile OS. That would likely mean partnering with a phone manufacturer or creating their own again. At that point, they either have to close down any ability to be found on Google or Apple mobile OS's, or also allow both to be on theirs.

This would certainly allow MS to retain more of the revenue, but effectively combating the two giants of the mobile space who are incredibly ingrained into the market psyche? That's a taller order than their current console struggles.

A bigger struggle than Google search? I think the size of the market makes it any interesting enough for them. I think we will see an extension of the MS and Samsung partnership.

Anecdotally speaking, virtually no one I know uses anything other than the stores native to their OS. None of them bothered to find ways around it all. I have a feeling that if Candy Crush disappeared from Google and Apple, an alternative would quickly be found on those stores. Mobile players, who are likely far more casual than console players, probably wouldn't spend much time looking for, nor be much aware of, an alternative store. That's not even suggesting that they completely switch phone brands and OS's just to play Diablo Immortal.

I agree that the power of the default is very powerful and that's going to be the biggest issue.

PS I don't think MS would pull King games but expect GP perks to be exclusive to MS Store versions. That obviously impacts the likelihood of it taking off but also massive reduces the risk.

 

[reinking]

To think a Trillion dollar company is going to spend 70 Billion just to try and hurt Sony when Console gaming makes up less tham 10% of the gaming market is ludicrous at best. It's always been obvious MS is gunning for Google, Apple and Amazon with this move.

So they can be third place (If they are lucky) in another market?


jk

 

[DarkMage619]

Brazil has passed it.
Saudi Arabia has passed it.
China has passed it.
Japan has passed it.
Chile has passed it
Serbia has passed it.

Lets go cma. We are waiting!!! Pass it already. Its inevitable.

I don't think China SAMR has approved it yet. The stuff with Netease is slowing things down. I do agree that there are no legal reasons why this deal will be blocked but Sony is helping the Gamer lawsuit so that's back and this process will drag out for months to come. At least when it's over it will leave no doubt it was thoroughly reviewed.

 

[Varteras]

A bigger struggle than Google search? I think the size of the market makes it any interesting enough for them. I think we will see an extension of the MS and Samsung partnership.


I agree that the power of the default is very powerful and that's going to be the biggest issue.

PS I don't think MS would pull King games but expect GP perks to be exclusive to MS Store versions. That obviously impacts the likelihood of it taking off but also massive reduces the risk.

I definitely think this is a very long game MS is playing here. I don't think we'll see the end result for quite some time and having any chance of success almost certainly hinges on legislation that forces Apple and Google to loosen their grip.

 

[feynoob]

I definitely think this is a very long game MS is playing here. I don't think we'll see the end result for quite some time and having any chance of success almost certainly hinges on legislation that forces Apple and Google to loosen their grip.

Even with legislators, it's hard to crack that market.
Mainly because other app store are irrelevant.
Your average joe will only use app store and Play store. They don't know other stores that much.

Amazon has fire tablet for their store and Samsung has Samsung store with their phone.

Outside of specific country app store, most don't stand a chance.

 

[Varteras]

Even with legislators, it's hard to crack that market.
Mainly because other app store are irrelevant.
Your average joe will only use app store and Play store. They don't know other stores that much.

Amazon has fire tablet for their store and Samsung has Samsung store with their phone.

Outside of specific country app store, most don't stand a chance.

Yep. As an example, I 100% forget that my Galaxy has a Samsung store. I always just use Google Play. So I would imagine your far more casual gamer, like I described in a previous post, won't even think to look. Can't play Candy Crush? I'll just play Bejeweled.

 

[Three]

Blah, blah, blah more projection. Again you lack such self awareness that you do the same things you accuse others of except you swap the company. You can't even conduct a conversation civilly. But please continue to act as though you are holier than thou.

As expected not a single relevant question addressed, just more blah blah blah sony bad, MS good throughout your entire post.

Sony clearly doesn't care about PC nearly as much as console. MS has shown that they will support multiple consoles and platforms and there is no evidence of them making buggy games to hurt competitors. You can't even understand a simple point so I completely agree that you have quite a bit in common with a brick wall as well.

You see, I'm under no illusion that Sony may put more effort in software on PS vs PC. You can use the 1 example you cling to as support.

You on the other hand when asking for examples of MS differences in software effort when it comes to xbox vs rival PlayStation start ranting about how they would never do such a thing when given examples.

You wax lyrical how none of the MS examples support what you accuse Sony of. That MS would want to "maximise proceeds" on PS whereas you think sony dont on PC, have "no entitlement to it anyway because it's their IP" as if TLOU IP isn't or COD won't be, and all sorts of other mental gymnastics why your beloved MS is good. It's you who lacks self awareness and has double standards.

 

[BeardGawd]

So wishfull thinking with facts from your ass at the moment ... ok got it

 

[DarkMage619]

As expected not a single relevant question addressed, just more blah blah blah sony bad, MS good throughout your entire post.

Nothing you have posted yet has been relevant. I have made no statements about good or bad but I can't comment on the voices in your head.

You see, I'm under no illusion that Sony may put more effort in software on PS vs PC. You can use the 1 example you cling to as support.

I pointed out the hypocrisy. You have a major issue with that for obvious reasons then you try and obfuscate by trying to shift the focus to me. It's pretty silly.

You on the other hand when asking for examples of MS differences in software effort when it comes to xbox vs rival PlayStation start ranting about how they would never do such a thing when given them.

MS never accused Sony of putting platform damaging software out on rival platforms. In addition MS has put out software on rival systems that offer features their own platforms lack. Of course you refuse to acknowledge this but it isn't surprising. It's pretty clear that both companies have different overall goals.

You wax lyrical how none of the MS examples support what you accuse Sony of. That MS would want to "maximise proceeds" on PS whereas you think sony dont on PC, have "no entitlement to it anyway because it's their IP" as if TLOU IP isn't, and all sorts of other mental gymnastics why your beloved MS is good. It's you who lacks self awareness and has double standards.

Pure nonsense. Obviously MS has very different standards when it comes to supporting platforms they do not own. Only one company attempted to push conspiracy theories and present blatant hypocrisy when it comes to multi-platform support. Again you try and point fingers when you are even more in love with a different company and defend them even when there is nothing to defend. More projection, more foolishness.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Nothing you have posted yet has been relevant. I have made no statements about good or bad but I can't comment on the voices in your head.

I pointed out the hypocrisy. You have a major issue with that for obvious reasons then you try and obfuscate by trying to shift the focus to me. It's pretty silly.

MS never accused Sony of putting platform damaging software out on rival platforms. In addition MS has put out software on rival systems that offer features their own platforms lack. Of course you refuse to acknowledge this but it isn't surprising. It's pretty clear that both companies have different overall goals.

Pure nonsense. Obviously MS has very different standards when it comes to supporting platforms they do not own. Only one company attempted to push conspiracy theories and present blatant hypocrisy when it comes to multi-platform support. Again you try and point fingers when you are even more in love with a different company and defend them even when there is nothing to defend. More projection, more foolishness.

The 900p AC Unity "parity or better" clause on the PS4/X1 marketing contract for Xbox with Ubisoft isn't conspiracy, that was confirmed at the time by a Microsoft PR person with Eurogamer, although I'm sure it has been deleted to oblivion if anyone wanted to find the article.
900p was optimal for Xbox's Esram bandwidth/size to maximise the throughput of the inferior console hardware limited by DDR3, and despite Ubisoft trying to PR that it was both console were CPU limited, it was obvious to everyone that Xbox had "degraded" a PlayStation version of a high profile game - that would have ran at 1080p on PS4 - for their own benefit.

I've already said I think these shenanigans have gone both ways over the generations, but it is only a critical issue now, because Microsoft are trying to acquire ATVI - including the essential CoD input for PlayStation - and such nefarious actions in a $70b acquisition - even if only happening 3, 5, 7 years later - would be a partial foreclosure strategy they've claimed wasn't their objective - which anyone with common sense calls bullshit on IMHO.

 

[ToadMan]

To think a Trillion dollar company is going to spend 70 Billion just to try and hurt Sony when Console gaming makes up less tham 10% of the gaming market is ludicrous at best. It's always been obvious MS is gunning for Google, Apple and Amazon with this move.

In which case, why not simply annouce ABK output will be multiplat for consoles and PC? Ie the status quo as it is today.

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

 

[DeepEnigma]

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

Because of those pesky Google, Apple and Amazon we tells ya!

 

[PaintTinJr]

Without having their own mobile OS, which they tried and failed at, I'm having a hard time seeing a way forward that manages to dislodge Google or Apple.

I used to think that, but it is just a waiting for Microsoft IMO, they just need to remain in control of the PC until iOS/Android come to them IMO.

Smartphones getting better hardware converges with real computers IMO, not the other way around. So at some point both iOS and Android will need to try and displace Windows in portable form (ultrabook/Surface/laptop), and in doing so give back market share to Windows in the ensuing comparison

The SteamDeck is already at the stage where a full laptop PC is small enough to be on the verge of going head to head with smartphones and phablets. At the point you can put a steamDeck PC in a regular candybar smartphone and compartmentalise the smartphone phone focused capabilities from the laptop entertainment OS a new market battle begins IMO and the store is up for grabs all over again.

 

[feynoob]

In which case, why not simply annouce ABK output will be multiplat for consoles and PC? Ie the status quo as it is today.

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

Ignoring his point, outside of Activision COD, the rest is going to be somewhat exclusive since they are going to own the company and would fund their future projects.

Its Just regular business. There will be casualty in the process, but that is business for you. Both companies will use their resources to make their service attractive.

the only ones who lose in this situation is us consumers, not Sony or MS.

 

[DarkMage619]

The 900p AC Unity "parity or better" clause on the PS4/X1 marketing contract for Xbox with Ubisoft isn't conspiracy, that was confirmed at the time by a Microsoft PR person with Eurogamer, although I'm sure it has been deleted to oblivion if anyone wanted to find the article.
900p was optimal for Xbox's Esram bandwidth/size to maximise the throughput of the inferior console hardware limited by DDR3, and despite Ubisoft trying to PR that it was both console were CPU limited, it was obvious to everyone that Xbox had "degraded" a PlayStation version of a high profile game - that would have ran at 1080p on PS4 - for their own benefit.

I've already said I think these shenanigans have gone both ways over the generations, but it is only a critical issue now, because Microsoft are trying to acquire ATVI - including the essential CoD input for PlayStation - and such nefarious actions in a $70b acquisition - even if only happening 3, 5, 7 years later - would be a partial foreclosure strategy they've claimed wasn't their objective - which anyone with common sense calls bullshit on IMHO.

What does this have to do with an accusation that MS could intentionally release buggy or degraded software on PlayStation to hurt their brand? Especially when based on software MS actually has released on PlayStation this isn't true. Party clauses are nothing like an intentional sabotage to hurt competitors. Like MS or not they have honored contracts in this space and have released quality software regardless of if they own the platform or not. This is no different than other third parties.

In which case, why not simply annouce ABK output will be multiplat for consoles and PC? Ie the status quo as it is today.

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

Because status quo does not include CoD in Game pass nor does it include actual parity across all platforms. This deal actually makes CoD more even across multiple platforms than it is today including giving the title to Nintendo platforms that don't have it now. If that is 'harming PlayStation consumers' I'm sure they'll recover. They will still get the same game as everyone else.

 

[BeardGawd]

In which case, why not simply annouce ABK output will be multiplat for consoles and PC? Ie the status quo as it is today.

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

Because that gives everyone else too much power over their IP. MS will keep things multiplat because it makes business sense. That's all the rationale the CMA and EC needs hence the no Console SLCs. Sure technically MS could make it exclusive but they also pay a heavy price in profitability and they weaken the IP as a whole. It wouldnt make sense. COD is on another level vs Redfall and Starfield so not comparable.

 

[adamsapple]

In which case, why not simply annouce ABK output will be multiplat for consoles and PC? Ie the status quo as it is today.

In fact, MS seems to be going out of their way to harm consumers who have chosen Sony products...

Haven't they done that already ? with their statements of keeping the franchise on PS platforms and possibly bringing it to Nintendo consoles. How much more multi-plat are we looking for here ?

 

[PaintTinJr]

What does this have to do with an accusation that MS could intentionally release buggy or degraded software on PlayStation to hurt their brand? Especially when based on software MS actually has released on PlayStation this isn't true. Party clauses are nothing like an intentional sabotage to hurt competitors. Like MS or not they have honored contracts in this space and have released quality software regardless of if they own the platform or not. This is no different than other third parties.

You are playing with words and being disingenuous.

In that example of AC Unity the PS4 version was "degraded" to a non-standardize TV resolution on a tv-console from its natural standard 1080p output to allow Xbox to assert parity with their product that wasn't just inferior, but inadequate to reach that standard by the Esram design size and it did damage the reputation of both systems at the time as both being inadequate.

 

[DarkMage619]

You are playing with words and being disingenuous.

In that example of AC Unity the PS4 version was "degraded" to a non-standardize TV resolution on a tv-console from its natural standard 1080p output to allow Xbox to assert parity with their product that wasn't just inferior, but inadequate to reach that standard by the Esram design size and it did damage the reputation of both systems at the time as both being inadequate.

Sorry man I don't see it. First off MS doesn't own the AC IP. If there was an agreement between the developer and the platform holder to alter game content it is no different than any of the companies paying for various features. This is a far cry from intentionally making a buggy game to hurt competitors. Disingenuous is arguing that it is the same thing when it is not. A parity clause is nothing like broken software. Besides MS has made games on PlayStation that offer features their own Xbox doesn't have. This is hardly the actions of a company trying to harm its competitors' platforms reputation.

 

[adamsapple]

You are playing with words and being disingenuous.

In that example of AC Unity the PS4 version was "degraded" to a non-standardize TV resolution on a tv-console from its natural standard 1080p output to allow Xbox to assert parity with their product that wasn't just inferior, but inadequate to reach that standard by the Esram design size and it did damage the reputation of both systems at the time as both being inadequate.

AC Unity is not an MS owned or published IP.

 

[PaintTinJr]

AC Unity is not an MS owned or published IP.

I never claimed it was, but they had a marketing deal that they used to force Ubisoft to degrade the game on the competing platform - PS4. This demonstrates that when they have had motivation and opportunity to degrade software on PlayStation they have done so, meaning they will likely do the same with CoD, which contradicts the notion that PlayStation are making this stuff up, when it is a perfectly proven strategy.

 

[adamsapple]

I never claimed it was, but they had a marketing deal that they used to force Ubisoft to degrade the game on the competing platform - PS4. This demonstrates that when they have had motivation and opportunity to degrade software on PlayStation they have done so, meaning they will likely do the same with CoD, which contradicts the notion that PlayStation are making this stuff up, when it is a perfectly proven strategy.

Do you have anything to back this up? I don't buy it, extra more considering that Sony generally gets the marketing deals for AC games with them showing at Sony's E3 keynotes more often.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Do you have anything to back this up? I don't buy it, extra more considering that Sony generally gets the marketing deals for AC games with them showing at Sony's E3 keynotes more often.

Xbox has the marketing deals for AC, not Sony

 

[adamsapple]

Xbox has the marketing deals for AC, not Sony

The only thing I remember about their shows on E3 is the amazing AC2 night time demo at the Sony keynote, everything after that is a blur

Regardless, the notion that MS forced Ubi to do parity is still ridiculous.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Do you have anything to back this up? I don't buy it, extra more considering that Sony generally gets the marketing deals for AC games with them showing at Sony's E3 keynotes more often.

was just forum drama gossip

Microsoft denies forcing parity for Assassin's Creed Unity

Ubisoft has been embroiled in another scandal, with Xbox's Phil Spencer denying that he forced them to make Unity 30fps on PC.

metro.co.uk

Ubisoft says it didn't lower PS4 Assassin's Creed Unity resolution to force parity

"We understand how Senior Producer Vincent Pontbriand's quotes have been misinterpreted."

www.videogamer.com