SegaManAU
Gold Member
Probably easier to claim free gamepass through the ambassador program. I just check it once a morning while I'm browsing the web. Click a few links, send a few GG's messages, and do some LFGs per month and you're set.
Microsoft / Activision Deal Approval Watch |OT| (MS/ABK close)
- Status
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
It's very easy to just have the 'auto redeem' option set to game pass ultimate. 10,500 points which you will probably get without even trying in half a month. Every 1st of the month, you get another month of GPU added to your profile. They've made it ridiculously easy to keep the service going indefinitely.
ReBurn
Gold Member
Most of the web-based stuff can be farmed with bots on PC so it's not really that big of a commitment. The streak bonuses rack up points, too.
The Xbox quests require the most attention. But even then most of those are for things you do on Xbox to begin with. Plus they introduce you to games you may not otherwise play.
The change last week to push you to get one achievement for 50 points every day makes it feel like a grind to me for the first time. Achievements are often more of a time investment than 50 points is worth, even for easy achievement games like Townscaper or Coffee Talk.
12Dannu123
Member
Because it benefits gamers in the Xbox ecosystem and they have the money and legal means to acquire more publishers, it's simple as that. So it makes sense for Microsoft to play by their strengths because everybody knows Sony has no financial or legal capability to acquire publishers like EA, Epic, ABK etc.
Last edited:
ChorizoPicozo
Member
Nothing1234
Banned
Explain what you mean here please?
Oddvintagechap
Banned
you don't want this, cause its foolish.
How such ?, just hire the same firm
Varteras
Member
Not true. Sony does have the financial ability to acquire something like EA or Epic. The question is; How much debt would they be willing to take on to finance the deal outside of any current cash and stock swaps?
As for it being legal, that would be up to regulators to decide. There is no immediate rule that says Sony isn't allowed to make a large purchase. There would, however, most likely be concessions involved.
An even better question would be; Does Sony see more value in doing what it would take to acquire something like EA or Epic over taking that money and using it to fuel a large number of smaller investments and acquisitions?
Nothing1234
Banned
If ABK can be acquired I find it VERY hard to believe Sony buying smaller stuff would be blocked.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
22 to 29.
given a listen very relevant.
Varteras
Member
Doubtful something like Epic would be blocked. However, I can see a concession where Sony is legally bound to allow access to the Unreal Engine for anyone who pays the licensing fee. That fee would also have to be a fair market value.
As for EA, I could see the annual sports franchises being a point of contention. But, Sony already makes annual MLB games for all platforms, under threat of losing the license. I'm sure a similar deal would be worked out there.
Last edited:
12Dannu123
Member
The Unreal Engine is the very definition of an essential input for the gaming industry. Like the Nvidia acquisition of Arm. It's very likely going to be blocked.
Nothing1234
Banned
Oh Epic would be for sure I mean the Capcom/ Square Enix level stuff.
Varteras
Member
It could be blocked, but I doubt it. Sony would point to the numerous other engines available. Including those owned by competitors. A concession to allow anyone to license the engine for a fair value could be arranged.
Varteras
Member
Oh Capcom and Square Enix would cause little more fuss than Zenimax or Bungie did. A slight bit more scrutiny but there really wouldn't be any good grounds to deny them.
12Dannu123
Member
Those engines are used internally, they're not licensed to third parties, unlike Unreal Engine. In terms of game engines that are licensed to third parties, Unreal has a vast majority of the market share.
Last edited:
SoloKingRobert
Banned
Tencent owns a 40% stake in Epic Games...
Varteras
Member
A very large portion, for sure. Again though, a concession making Sony obligated to allow anyone to purchase a license could be arranged.
We're speaking in hypothetical situations. I don't honestly believe Sony is going after Epic or EA
extremely unlikely that anyone's going to allow Sony or Microsoft buy Epic.
Promising concessions isn't always acceptable to regulators. NVIDiA offered concessions too for fair value access when they tried to buy ARM.
Varteras
Member
I think it just depends on how irreplaceable Unreal Engine is viewed and whether even very robust concessions would suffice. It wouldn't be easy, but I could see a convincing argument be born. Though I don't think any of that matters because I doubt Sweeney is willing to give up his controlling stake. He's in a very sweet position in the industry.
And it's not just Unreal Engine. Fortnite too. That's an even bigger headache than Call of Duty.
Varteras
Member
Eh. It's a singular, F2P game available on every platform already. Not sure how strong of a case you'd have there when Call of Duty was bought and it was just argued that Sony could come up with a competitor in 10 years.
Varteras
Member
Not at all cheap. Sweeney accounts for about $20 billion of that. So just to buy him out you'd need to pay that and likely a big premium. I doubt Tencent would give up its stake but if both were willing, yeah. I could see that being a $40 to $50 billion purchase
12Dannu123
Member
No, it was argued that Microsoft would not have an incentive to make COD exclusive as is it would be too much of a loss. The same will apply to Sony for Fornite.
Varteras
Member
That was one argument, yes.
12Dannu123
Member
If it's a very large portion, then it's classified as an essential input.
Varteras
Member
From Chat GPT:
Unreal Engine is a popular game engine developed by Epic Games and is used to create video games for various platforms. While Unreal Engine can be an important tool in game development, it may not necessarily be classified as an essential input in gaming by regulators.
In determining whether a resource or asset is an essential input, regulators typically consider factors such as its importance in the production process, whether there are viable substitutes available, and whether it is a bottleneck resource that cannot be easily duplicated or replaced.
While Unreal Engine is widely used in the game development industry, there are other game engines available, and game developers have the flexibility to choose which game engine to use based on their needs and preferences. Additionally, while Unreal Engine offers a range of tools and features that can aid in game development, it is not the only game engine that provides these capabilities.
Therefore, it is unlikely that Unreal Engine would be classified as an essential input in gaming by regulators. However, if an acquisition involving Unreal Engine were to occur, regulators would still assess its potential impact on competition and consider other factors such as market share, barriers to entry, and the potential for anti-competitive behavior by the merged entity.
POKEYCLYDE
Member
Think of the hurdles Microsoft has had to go through because they had one competitor against the deal. Every game developer from small to big would be against it. The harm to competition would be immeasurable if Sony restricted access to Unreal Engine.
Varteras
Member
They would certainly get pushback but I don't think it's clear cut that the deal would be blocked on grounds that UE is essential. Lumberyard, CryEngine, Frostbite, Unity, IdTech, and other proprietary engines would be argued as alternatives.
Epic says more than half of all announced next-gen games are made on Unreal Engine
Unreal Engine 5.1 is being released on Tuesday.
www.theverge.com
Stuff like this won't help the case imo. I think the argument would split into smaller devs and bigger devs (with their own proprietary engines). Also the latter is getting weird cause we are seeing some bigger devs basically consolidating the engines that they have or opting for UE5 instead.
Chukhopops
Member
Of course I am arguing the legality of the « bait and switch » argument since it's the only relevant one. You can't go to court on the basis of « semantic bait and switch », especially if the basis for it is fanfiction that has no precedent in reality:
- assuming GP prices will increase when they have not, not even adjusting for the 23% inflation rate over the last five years;
- assuming MS wants to get rid of the B2P model when it's the vast majority of their revenue today;
- assuming MS intends to have 10 years of « investment » phase on GP when they have already started closing some loopholes and nothing indicates that their gaming division is losing money today.
There's no indication whatsoever what you worry about will happen.
Varteras
Member
Epic says more than half of all announced next-gen games are made on Unreal Engine
Unreal Engine 5.1 is being released on Tuesday.
Stuff like this won't help the case imo. I think the argument would split into smaller devs and bigger devs (with their own proprietary engines). Also the latter is getting weird cause we are seeing some bigger devs basically consolidating the engines that they have or opting for UE5 instead.
Oh I don't think at all that it would be an easy pitch. Any platform holder looking to buy Epic and get control of UE would have a big fight on their hands. One that I don't think any of them want to bother with.
feynoob
Banned
ChorizoPicozo
I am still waiting for MS to pull plug off for Xbox live gold, which Grubb told us last 2 year.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Go back and re-read. Your argument is a strawman, because I never claimed about taking anything to court for it legally being a bait-and-switch, hence why I specifically mentioned the origins being door-to-door selling when I first raised the issue, so you would know I was talking about it semantically, rather than literally.
Trying to move the conversation to a legal discussion to cover that you conceded any argument with me painting it as bait-and-switch long play (semantically), and immediately defended gamepass' future intentions on legal grounds tells me a lot about your morality or philosophical meanderings to discuss what I find important in these topics, as a gamer.
Microsoft have intentionally obscured whether Xbox has made a ROI in over two decades, that isn't normal competition in any market place by a real competitor.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
lets wait for what Jezz "I hate toxicity but i participe in it" corden has to say.
I am still waiting for MS to pull plug off for Xbox live gold, which Grubb told us last 2 year.
HoofHearted
Member
Chukhopops
Member
Are you really trying to pull that? This is your original post on the topic:
Where is the semantic part? Oh yeah you added it in the next post after I asked you to explain how GP is « intentionally setup to use that same tactic ».
I have no idea what you're trying to say about morality in a topic about corporate acquisitions (in fact I would argue it's really weird to try to bring morality into it).
As for your last point, this is common practice actually. You can't find a separate P&L from Amazon on Prime Video (I checked the 2022 report) or from Apple on Apple TV+ (also checked, not even sub numbers). Companies report what they have to report from a legal perspective, no more no less.
splattered
Member
I don't think Bobby Kotick WOULD burn in hell, actually I think he would be quite comfortable haha
No it's not, as it's not hardware based like ARM nor is it as complicated (and there's other engines too), however i do see them being legally bound to license the UE in perpetuity.
feynoob
Banned
It's the same thing.
A lot of games depends on that engine. A company like Sony/MS can essentially icrease the quality of their products, while decreasing the quality output for those games that are using UE5.
License isn't the only issue there.
Last edited:
POKEYCLYDE
Member
He'd be running the place within 6 months.
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don't know why the discussion is going to "X publisher will block Unreal Engine from other platforms".
Epic is in the engine licensing business. Making them stop selling licenses for their universally cross-platform engine will be defeating the entire purpose of their modern existence.
Epic is in the engine licensing business. Making them stop selling licenses for their universally cross-platform engine will be defeating the entire purpose of their modern existence.
PaintTinJr
Gold Member
Unless you are telling Brad Smith, Phil, Colt and Dealer are selling Gamepass door-to-door on their evenings with $1 introductory offers that needs defended in court as easily challengeable bait-and-switch in court, I will point you to the fact that a tactic transcends many unrelated things. I could have just as easily been discussing how Cigarettes were introduce to poor areas of Africa - so my father told me, after he was offered a job there - back in the day using a bait-and-switch tactic of giving them away for free, but that obviously wouldn't have made it challengeable in a court, as they are two different legal transactions, of gift giving, and a sale.
You are correct, I should have explicitly stated it was semantic as I did later, as the intention of my words were - in hindsight - not as clear as I intended.
Who cares if it is legally a bait-and-switch - if like the cigarette issue it is morally wrong, and semantically a bait-and-switch? Had I been on the other end of such a discussion I would have defended something - if possible - by it being morally defensible, first, I wouldn't have even cared about its legality if it was against my philisophical viewpoint.
But these companies haven't been selling hardware and B2P for two decades, and they don't have to defend iOS or Android from a TV-Box like a PlayStation - like Microsoft has had to with Windows, and they haven't spent billion per year subsidizing hardware and giving themselves prominent advertising space they could have sold, used for a home console on IE/Edge/Bing/Windows for 2 decades.
Last edited:
IntentionalPun
Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
Sony isn't going to spend $40 billion on a game publisher (what it would take for EA or Epic).. even spending half that would be a stretch.
This forum loves to talk about pointless hypotheticals.
This forum loves to talk about pointless hypotheticals.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Tencent wouldn't sell to anyone who wanted to acquire Epic anyways.
I do think it's hilarious that Tim Sweeney is in bed with China and that's perfectly ok but a Japanese or American company wouldn't clear antitrust hurdles to acquire it. That's the world we live in 2023.
I do think it's hilarious that Tim Sweeney is in bed with China and that's perfectly ok but a Japanese or American company wouldn't clear antitrust hurdles to acquire it. That's the world we live in 2023.
Need to kill the time.
- Status