Support NeoGAF

[onesvenus]

A person posting their thoughts and opinions on a public discussion forum should elicit this type of response. If my, or any of our musings and armchair analysis, ruffles your feathers to this degree, mute or block.

Just don't vent like someone hurt you, personally.

Something that would be really worth for both the forum and this thread is if people think before posting shit that doesn't bring anything to the table. It's not like any random though is worth discussing

 

[R3claimer117]

I didn't say he wasn't pro Microsoft he covers them mostly Tom is very pro Microsoft wasn't referring to Tom.

 

[InverseAgonist]

I have an odd idea. If we take a step back from all this fighting and sniping in here. If Microsoft has no monopolistic or nefarious intentions with this $70 Billion merger and Activision-Blizzards's IP...

Why don't they do what Sony did with Bungie and keep them an independent entity with their own Board-of-Directors and multiplatform? I mean, it's really simple, no?

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Actually, it doesn't. 2 pages later the EC makes multiple references to what Microsoft said about its future strategy regarding Zenimax games including future games such as Starfield, Redfall etc. I know you're not blind.

Snipped off an important part there champ. Wonder why?

 

[Banjo64]

Future decisions on whether to distribute ZeniMax games for other consoles will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account player demand and sentiment, Microsoft's strategic and financial goals, and the willingness of third-party gaming hardware providers to run Microsoft games and services.

Literally all that's relevant on that entire page. Player demand and sentiment for classic Zenimax franchises won't diss appear, and obviously Sony would be happy for Microsoft to publish their games on PS. I know Phil has said in the past that they'll publish games wherever Game Pass is supported, but yeah. There it is in writing.

I still think a £7.99 a month Game Pass option for just MS exclusive games on Switch/PS that would require NSO/Plus for online play is a workable solution for everyone. Won't happen though.

 

[Ezekiel_]

I have an odd idea. If we take a step back from all this fighting and sniping in here. If Microsoft has no monopolistic or nefarious intentions with this $70 Billion merger and Activision-Blizzards's IP...

Why don't they do what Sony did with Bungie and keep them an independent entity with their own Board-of-Directors and multiplatform? I mean, it's really simple, no?

Rhetorical question?

 

[elliot5]

Snipped off an important part there champ. Wonder why?

Yes, they concluded that even when considering the scenario Xbox made all or some games exclusive, it wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't foreclose rival console distributors (Sony, Nintendo). There is no clear and dangerous incentive for Microsoft to substantially lessen competition even in the event they totally or partially foreclose input of games into their distribution.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

Yes, they concluded that even when considering the scenario Xbox made all or some games exclusive, it wouldn't be a problem because it wouldn't foreclose rival console distributors (Sony, Nintendo). There is no clear and dangerous incentive for Microsoft to substantially lessen competition even in the event they totally or partially foreclose input of games into their distribution.

What the fuk kind of interpretation is that?

It's three lines. How can you get it so wrong?

 

[DeepEnigma]

What the fuk kind of interpretation is that?

It's three lines. How can you get it so wrong?

Good guys, we swears it.

 

[Topher]

Actually, it doesn't. 2 pages later the EC makes multiple references to what Microsoft said about its future strategy regarding Zenimax games including future games such as Starfield, Redfall etc. I know you're not blind.

And I know you know what the word "making" means in regards to games. Nothing you are highlighting changes that. If your point is to say Microsoft is contradicting what the EU is saying then perhaps, but otherwise you are working far too hard for free(?) and accomplishing next to nothing with any of this.

 

[Ass of Can Whooping]

And I know you know what the word "making" means in regards to games. Nothing you are highlighting changes that. If your point is to say Microsoft is contradicting what the EU is saying then perhaps, but otherwise you are working far too hard for free(?) and accomplishing next to nothing with any of this.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Snipped off an important part there champ. Wonder why?

That's why I didn't respond to it. So thank you for doing so. It's a bit ridiculous, people arguing with the facts they want to present and not all of them.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Snipped off an important part there champ. Wonder why?

"That's not the info you're looking for."

 

[Swift_Star]

PDF statement

Most of this is defending Zenimax exclusivity and pushing that Xbox honored their commitments and promises, which makes me believe the Zenimax issue is the wedge that's the biggest concern to Microsoft right now as it's being used against them as an example of them breaking promises.

Using Starfield and Redfall as examples, their defense boils down to that both those games are new IP, they aren't established, have no-preexisting sales or revenue, or association with PlayStation, therefore making both games exclusive to Xbox/PC would have no impact on Sony by excluding a PS5 release for these games, and they are not taking away content from other gaming communities, but expanding them. They also use an older quote from Phil in 2020 showing they would take a look at releasing Zenimax games on other platforms by a case-by-case basis.

The tidbits about COD are retreading what we've already seen, so it's really the Zenimax defense that is the focus here.

That's dishonest as shit.

 

[KingT731]

Yep. This is why I cut Phil Spencer a lot of slack. What he's managed to do in his time as Xbox Boss is something that will set the brand up for a lot of success moving forward. We are in the growing pains stage which looks worse because Sony has a mature pipeline of devs that continually release solid games, making this specific era in Xbox look extra anemic.

You guys do know that Phil was there the WHOLE time, right? He was the #2 guy at Xbox. He's just as much at fault for their 1st party output during the 360 era.

 

[R3claimer117]

I have an odd idea. If we take a step back from all this fighting and sniping in here. If Microsoft has no monopolistic or nefarious intentions with this $70 Billion merger and Activision-Blizzards's IP...

Why don't they do what Sony did with Bungie and keep them an independent entity with their own Board-of-Directors and multiplatform? I mean, it's really simple, no?

Microsoft didn't buy bungie back for those reason. They see no point in making any acquisitions that have no benefits to gamepass. They and Sony have different strategies. Sony bought bungie cause the love getting money from micro transactions and will be selling the hard physical copies of those games to everyone. Microsoft strategy is to leave all the their existing games where they are but have have them on gamepass exclusively. They also want to make future games exclusive to their platform as well. There's nothing nefarious about that strategy as those games have no existing fan base and you need differentiators to make your platform attractive it's business. Sony does what works for them Microsoft clearly is putting their eggs in their gamepass gamble and that's where they're heading. That's competition at the end of the day.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony bought bungie cause the love getting money from micro transactions and will be selling the hard physical copies of those games to everyone. Microsoft strategy is to leave all the their existing games where they are but have have them on gamepass exclusively.

Bro, MSFT is claiming the entire point of ABK is the K part of it. And all the fans kept running with the new PR script update. Beep boop.

But we all know there is more to it than the King MTX behemoth.

 

[Ezekiel_]

Microsoft didn't buy bungie back for those reason. They see no point in making any acquisitions that have no benefits to gamepass. They and Sony have different strategies. Sony bought bungie cause the love getting money from micro transactions and will be selling the hard physical copies of those games to everyone. Microsoft strategy is to leave all the their existing games where they are but have have them on gamepass exclusively. They also want to make future games exclusive to their platform as well. There's nothing nefarious about that strategy as those games have no existing fan base and you need differentiators to make your platform attractive it's business. Sony does what works for them Microsoft clearly is putting their eggs in their gamepass gamble and that's where they're heading. That's competition at the end of the day.

You summed up why regulators are having issues with the proposed merger

 

[Topher]

You guys do know that Phil was there the WHOLE time, right? He was the #2 guy at Xbox. He's just as much at fault for their 1st party output during the 360 era.

But being the number 2 guy still means you are working for someone else. Everyone working for Jim Ryan does what he says. So the question is really how much input did Spencer have? Really don't know the answer to that but ultimately it wasn't his decision as long as he was the number two guy.

Microsoft didn't buy bungie back for those reason. They see no point in making any acquisitions that have no benefits to gamepass. They and Sony have different strategies. Sony bought bungie cause the love getting money from micro transactions and will be selling the hard physical copies of those games to everyone. Microsoft strategy is to leave all the their existing games where they are but have have them on gamepass exclusively. They also want to make future games exclusive to their platform as well. There's nothing nefarious about that strategy as those games have no existing fan base and you need differentiators to make your platform attractive it's business. Sony does what works for them Microsoft clearly is putting their eggs in their gamepass gamble and that's where they're heading. That's competition at the end of the day.

Microsoft loves microtransactions just as much as anyone and they will continue selling physical copies of their games. What do you mean "have them on Game Pass exclusively"? You do know Microsoft is going to continue selling games outside of Game Pass, right? Games like Elder Scrolls have massive existing fanbases. So how does that work?

 

[bentanchorbolt]

You guys do know that Phil was there the WHOLE time, right? He was the #2 guy at Xbox. He's just as much at fault for their 1st party output during the 360 era.

Yes, I think most people ITT are aware of this fact, but I still don't see your point as some "gotcha" like you do. You still take marching orders from those above you, not just from Don, but the board. Phil now has the direct ear of Satya and the trust to spent nearly $80b on videogames. Judging him based on his time being the big dick since 2017, I'd say he's doing a pretty good job.

 

[OsirisBlack]

Microsoft didn't buy bungie back for those reason. They see no point in making any acquisitions that have no benefits to gamepass. They and Sony have different strategies. Sony bought bungie cause the love getting money from micro transactions and will be selling the hard physical copies of those games to everyone. Microsoft strategy is to leave all the their existing games where they are but have have them on gamepass exclusively. They also want to make future games exclusive to their platform as well. There's nothing nefarious about that strategy as those games have no existing fan base and you need differentiators to make your platform attractive it's business. Sony does what works for them Microsoft clearly is putting their eggs in their gamepass gamble and that's where they're heading. That's competition at the end of the day.

Well thought out. I agree with most of it the issue is exactly what you stated though. Microsoft buys every publisher they can get their hands on and makes all of their games exclusive to game pass while putting it on EVERY POSSIBLE device (sound familiar?)that can handle game pass. What you now have is Microsoft gatekeeping as many games as they can to their environment effectively eliminating competition. Disney buying everything =bad, Microsoft buying everything = bad, tencent buying everything =bad, Meta buying Everything = bad, Sony buying everything = bad. I don't care who it is it's bad for consumers.

 

[intheinbetween]

I have an odd idea. If we take a step back from all this fighting and sniping in here. If Microsoft has no monopolistic or nefarious intentions with this $70 Billion merger and Activision-Blizzards's IP...

Why don't they do what Sony did with Bungie and keep them an independent entity with their own Board-of-Directors and multiplatform? I mean, it's really simple, no?

It seems some people really believe Sony acquired Bungie to develop games on platforms besides PS and EGS. Sony acquired Bungie that's what has been signed on papers, not acquiring Bungie under the clause of developing games on every available gaming platform.

Bungie is not independent, they're part of SIE and if you Sony won't be getting all of their titles and better content you're delusional.

 

[KingT731]

Yes, I think most people ITT are aware of this fact, but I still don't see your point as some "gotcha" like you do. You still take marching orders from those above you, not just from Don, but the board. Phil now has the direct ear of Satya and the trust to spent nearly $80b on videogames. Judging him based on his time being the big dick since 2017, I'd say he's doing a pretty good job.

But being the number 2 guy still means you are working for someone else. Everyone working for Jim Ryan does what he says. So the question is really how much input did Spencer have? Really don't know the answer to that but ultimately it wasn't his decision as long as he was the number two guy.

It's not a "Gotcha" or anything of the sort...It's a fact. He was the GM of MS Studios since 2008 (any questions of quality/output of 1st party studios would be directed at him) and effectively leader of all of Xbox since 2014 and eventually CEO of MS Gaming. We're 8 years deep into the "Phil Spencer Era" and people are still blaming Don for every MS failing even though most of the cuts and cancelations that they speak of were Phil's doing. Phil just gave people Game Pass that's his legacy as the leader of Xbox/MS Gaming.

 

[feynoob]

It's not a "Gotcha" or anything of the sort...It's a fact. He was the GM of MS Studios since 2008 (any questions of quality/output of 1st party studios would be directed at him) and effectively leader of all of Xbox since 2014 and eventually CEO of MS Gaming. We're 8 years deep into the "Phil Spencer Era" and people are still blaming Don for every MS failing even though most of the cuts and cancelations that they speak of were Phil's doing. Phil just gave people Game Pass that's his legacy as the leader of Xbox/MS Gaming.

Why are people defending don in this case?

Why can Phil buy those 1st party studios, yet don can't?

The blame lies to whoever was running Xbox during those period. It left Xbox one with less 1st party studios. If they bought 3-5 studios, Xbox would have had more than halo gears and Forza.

This is MS error. It started when they ignored Sega offer. Sega could have been a 1st party to Xbox during OG Xbox and X360.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

It's not a "Gotcha" or anything of the sort...It's a fact. He was the GM of MS Studios since 2008 (any questions of quality/output of 1st party studios would be directed at him) and effectively leader of all of Xbox since 2014 and eventually CEO of MS Gaming. We're 8 years deep into the "Phil Spencer Era" and people are still blaming Don for every MS failing even though most of the cuts and cancelations that they speak of were Phil's doing. Phil just gave people Game Pass that's his legacy as the leader of Xbox/MS Gaming.

As previously stated, we all know what positions Phil held from when to when, etc. Going more in-depth on them doesn't strengthen your point and reminding me of this info which is already known doesn't change my opinion since these things were all considered when arriving at my opinion.

Despite your reminder, I will continue to cut him some slack in the near term, which is mostly dependent of 2023 and on. They have 23 studios, we should be caught up by end of next year with all the covid delays. What happens now will be the most important part of his legacy, whether he was successful or just wasted a ton of money,

 

[InverseAgonist]

It seems some people really believe Sony acquired Bungie to develop games on platforms besides PS and EGS. Sony acquired Bungie that's what has been signed on papers, not acquiring Bungie under the clause of developing games on every available gaming platform.

Bungie is not independent, they're part of SIE and if you Sony won't be getting all of their titles and better content you're delusional.

Of course Sony wants to secure their content. Nobody, myself especially, ever said anything to that effect. But they are allowing Bungie to retain a good deal of independence and their own direction and board-of-directors.

Why can't Microsoft do this? If they're out to promote content and help nurture developers for the betterment of the industry (in addition of themselves) and consumers, then let them stay independent as analogy to Bungie and SIE.

But, the obvious thing you'll never admit out loud is Microsoft doesn't want this. How does Microsoft keeping Redfall and Starfield locked to Microsoft platforms better of consumers and the industry wit large?!


They don't want to just secure the developer and help them along while letting them publish anywhere. Sony invests in companies like Epic Games and Square and others and it's a net benefit for the industry, strategic investment without explicit control. How is that in anyway like what Microsoft, a trillion dollar corporation, does by buying in to the tune of $70 Billion into an industry they've been competing in for two decades and failed to make inroads in? And that, my friend, is why the government will be against this.

 

[bxrz]

Microsoft has a big advantage there with Azure. Most corporations don't have a worldwide cloud architecture in a different division of the company. That is why Microsoft is so keen to promote cloud gaming. So now if the focus is to focus on cloud gaming then you have more consolidation than ever before. Big tech keeps getting bigger. This is exactly the kind of thing regulators are trying to reign in.

Not exactly

As of now, Cloud gaming has no market. Its 1% of the overall gaming picture. Cloud gaming is in its infancy stage. The CMA won't put restrictions on a market that hasn't even matured yet. That is the definition of prohibiting innovation and choice for the consumer

 

[KingT731]

Why are people defending don in this case?

Why can Phil buy those 1st party studios, yet don can't?

The blame lies to whoever was running Xbox during those period. It left Xbox one with less 1st party studios. If they bought 3-5 studios, Xbox would have had more than halo gears and Forza.

This is MS error. It started when they ignored Sega offer. Sega could have been a 1st party to Xbox during OG Xbox and X360.

It's no defense to Don at all just doing as you just said blame who is running the place since 2013 (officially 2014) and somehow it get circled back to Don instead of the person who in charge. MS def has a history of terrible decisions there's no argument there.

 

[Topher]

It's not a "Gotcha" or anything of the sort...It's a fact. He was the GM of MS Studios since 2008 (any questions of quality/output of 1st party studios would be directed at him) and effectively leader of all of Xbox since 2014 and eventually CEO of MS Gaming. We're 8 years deep into the "Phil Spencer Era" and people are still blaming Don for every MS failing even though most of the cuts and cancelations that they speak of were Phil's doing. Phil just gave people Game Pass that's his legacy as the leader of Xbox/MS Gaming.

Pretty sure we are all talking about the stuff that happened under Don's watch. No one is saying Spencer wasn't an executive at MS during that time. But who are you are ultimately going to say was responsible for what happened? If I'm going to point to one guy it will be the guy in charge. Prior to 2014, that wasn't Phil Spencer. And one of the first things he did when he took over was yank Kinect out of the box and fix the price issue. I think you got to look at the good and the bad here.

Not exactly

As of now, Cloud gaming has no market. Its 1% of the overall gaming picture. Cloud gaming is in its infancy stage. The CMA won't put restrictions on a market that hasn't even matured yet. That is the definition of prohibiting innovation and choice for the consumer

I'm not so sure. I think regulators are actively attempting to restrict "big tech" and cloud gaming is very much in the wheelhouse of "big tech".

 

[feynoob]

Not exactly

As of now, Cloud gaming has no market. Its 1% of the overall gaming picture. Cloud gaming is in its infancy stage. The CMA won't put restrictions on a market that hasn't even matured yet. That is the definition of prohibiting innovation and choice for the consumer

It's like putting restrictions on Netflix during it's early stage.

 

[DarkMage619]

Well thought out. I agree with most of it the issue is exactly what you stated though. Microsoft buys every publisher they can get their hands on and makes all of their games exclusive to game pass while putting it on EVERY POSSIBLE device (sound familiar?)that can handle game pass. What you now have is Microsoft gatekeeping as many games as they can to their environment effectively eliminating competition. Disney buying everything =bad, Microsoft buying everything = bad, tencent buying everything =bad, Meta buying Everything = bad, Sony buying everything = bad. I don't care who it is it's bad for consumers.

MS gatekeeping allows you to still play content without needing to buy their hardware at all. MS gatekeeping allows you to access content without having to rely solely on traditional retail. Those are absolutely consumer benefits. An important point to know is in no way shape or form is MS 'buying everything' that is complete hyperbole. It's like people don't even realize that MS is in third place in console and even lower on PC. There are no monopoly concerns with this acquisition.

Not exactly

As of now, Cloud gaming has no market. Its 1% of the overall gaming picture. Cloud gaming is in its infancy stage. The CMA won't put restrictions on a market that hasn't even matured yet. That is the definition of prohibiting innovation and choice for the consumer

Agreed and let's not forget you can't even use MS cloud services independently. It's only part of their top subscription service. It's another huge error in the FTC's complaint.

Of course Sony wants to secure their content. Nobody, myself especially, ever said anything to that effect. But they are allowing Bungie to retain a good deal of independence and their own direction and board-of-directors.

Why can't Microsoft do this? If they're out to promote content and help nurture developers for the betterment of the industry (in addition of themselves) and consumers, then let them stay independent as analogy to Bungie and SIE.

But, the obvious thing you'll never admit out loud is Microsoft doesn't want this. How does Microsoft keeping Redfall and Starfield locked to Microsoft platforms better of consumers and the industry wit large?!


They don't want to just secure the developer and help them along while letting them publish anywhere. Sony invests in companies like Epic Games and Square and others and it's a net benefit for the industry, strategic investment without explicit control. How is that in anyway like what Microsoft, a trillion dollar corporation, does by buying in to the tune of $70 Billion into an industry they've been competing in for two decades and failed to make inroads in? And that, my friend, is why the government will be against this.

People will have to accept that Sony and MS do not have to operate the same way. People yell and scream when people suggest that Sony put their titles on PS+ day and date like MS yet expect MS to follow Sony's organic growth and their acquisition strategies. They are both capable of following their own path and letting the market decide what happens next. As long as laws aren't broken they should be left to what works best for their respective organizations.

 

[feynoob]

It's no defense to Don at all just doing as you just said blame who is running the place since 2013 (officially 2014) and somehow it get circled back to Don instead of the person who in charge. MS def has a history of terrible decisions there's no argument there.

This mess started with him, not Phil.
Don had OG Xbox success handed to him. Instead of expanding in house 1st party, he neglected them badly.
This treatment transfered to Xbox one.

You can praise all those 3rd party exclusives, but it's meaningless when your in house party is too thin.

The guy didn't even bother buying playground studios. This their best studio.

The blame is 100% on him. His neglecting caused Xbox to have weak line up during Xbox one.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It's like putting restrictions on Netflix during it's early stage.

Netflix remains a really bad comparison. They got where they are by licensing and then hard investment on original content.

They did not purchase big movie studios. Netflix is a poster child for innovation not consolidation.

 

[bxrz]

Pretty sure we are all talking about the stuff that happened under Don's watch. No one is saying Spencer wasn't an executive at MS during that time. But who are you are ultimately going to say was responsible for what happened? If I'm going to point to one guy it will be the guy in charge. Prior to 2014, that wasn't Phil Spencer. And one of the first things he did when he took over was yank Kinect out of the box and fix the price issue. I think you got to look at the good and the bad here.



I'm not so sure. I think regulators are actively attempting to restrict "big tech" and cloud gaming is very much in the wheelhouse of "big tech".

They're going to need a lot more than that to justify why this deal is bad for Cloud gaming and its nonexistent market

 

[DenchDeckard]

From a new third party report published by the CMA here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6391da18d3bf7f1bcd58284a/Market_Participant_A.pdf




Some key points from a user called POKEYCLYDE in the other forum:

- They basically compare Game Pass to Netflix in that, despite Netflix being the clear market leader in the beginning, other TV subscriptions services have caught up recently (in a short period of time) based on providing quality content (which gives credence to a pro-competitive environment).

- Cloud gaming removes the expensive barrier of entry (needing to buy a console) which makes gaming more accessible for consumers.

- Services that rely on content being provided by the platform holder tend to be pro-competitive and can be disrupted by a competitor. Where as services that rely on user generated content are harder to disrupt (things like social media). Gamepass is viewed as the former, therefore pro-competition.

- They talk about the dynamism of the industry and how games like Fortnite have been able to capture a large market share, which to me sounds like a direct counter to Call of Duty being a juggernaut that cannot have an equal.

- Call of Duty coming to gamepass is pro-consumer. Gives gamers more choice.

- They talk about how Microsoft wouldn't be incentivized to make Call of Duty exclusive, as it is a community based game and doing so would diminish it's consumers. This is most evident by Microsoft's most comparable transaction of Mojang, and the strategy they employed with Minecraft. They go on to say EVEN IF Microsoft made Call of Duty exclusive, Playstation would still have more users than Xbox in the unlikely scenario that all the Call of Duty users on Playstation migrated to Xbox.

It seems not everyone is against the deal. This one is in fact quite strongly in favour of the deal. It would be interesting to know who is behind it

This absolutely nails it. Tbf.

Great points and all true. Sony just needs to step up and deliver great subscription content. Consumers have shown its what they want and its not hard to compete if you offer a decent option.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Consumers have shown its what they want and its not hard to compete if you offer a decent option.

 

[Thirty7ven]

This absolutely nails it. Tbf.

Great points and all true. Sony just needs to step up and deliver great subscription content. Consumers have shown its what they want and its not hard to compete if you offer a decent option.

Oh so Sony should buy EA and Capcom on the back of having no incentive to fuck Xbox gamers in the ass. Innovation ftw

 

[Topher]

Sony just needs to step up and deliver great subscription content. Consumers have shown its what they want and its not hard to compete if you offer a decent option.

No, they really haven't. Game Pass is the largest subscription there is and it isn't above 30 million yet after being on the market for years. There are billions of gamers in the world. Where is this massive demand for subscriptions?

 

[feynoob]

Netflix remains a really bad comparison. They got where they are by licensing and then hard investment on original content.

They did not purchase big movie studios. Netflix is a poster child for innovation not consolidation.

It led to blockbuster death in the process.

Comparing them to MS is wrong from my part, but the idea is the same.

Stopping early tech could have direct consequences in it's ability to advance.

 

[feynoob]

They are right. If you stop listening to forum people.

People want convenience..

Ignore that. Thought it was from the document.

 

[DeepEnigma]

They are right. If you stop listening to forum people.

People want convenience.

And being able to buy what they want, is still a convenience that far outweighs a rental service. Well, for every other gaming brand out there.

 

[Thirty7ven]

It led to blockbuster death in the process.

It's a stupid comparison. PlayStation has subscription services and cloud offerings. So if none of the context is a parallel to Netflix vs Blockbuster, why do the comparison anyway?

 

[feynoob]

And being able to buy what they want, is still a convenience that far outweighs a rental service. Well, for every other gaming brand out there.

I edited my post.

Should have read his post very well.

 

[akimbo009]

No, they really haven't. Game Pass is the largest subscription there is and it isn't above 30 million yet after being on the market for years. There are billions of gamers in the world. Where is this massive demand for subscriptions?

When do you think it's a success? Is it 30M subscribers? Or 40M? How far are you going to move those goalposts.

 

[feynoob]

It's a stupid comparison. PlayStation has subscription services and cloud offerings. So if none of the context is a parallel to Netflix vs Blockbuster, why do the comparison anyway?

The point is Netflix new model depended on shipping to your home, while MS service depends on their Azure.

Blockbuster died, because it couldn't compete with Netflix new model. Sony on other hand has PS now, and partnering with MS to use their azure.

If we ignore this deal (Activision purchase), regulators shouldn't limit this tech, because MS is the leader here. It needs MS investment in order for PS and other future companies to benefit from this tech.

Between us right now, only this purchase is making it hard for us to have a mutual argument about it. (we both agree that this deal shouldn't happen in order to benefit this tech).

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Relevant to this shitshow.

 

[DarkMage619]

When do you think it's a success? Is it 30M subscribers? Or 40M? How far are you going to move those goalposts.

Sony has been touting Game pass is something regulators should be aware of so they clearly think it is pretty successful for sure.



Some more context is being added about the 'lies' of MS. It might shed some light on whether or not MS upholds their agreements.

 

[Swift_Star]

MS gatekeeping allows you to still play content without needing to buy their hardware at all. MS gatekeeping allows you to access content without having to rely solely on traditional retail. Those are absolutely consumer benefits.

You'll pay for everything and own nothing.
And you'll be happy.

 

[DarkMage619]

You'll pay for everything and own nothing.
And you'll be happy.

You have a clear option to either purchase or subscribe to access content on the Xbox platform. Don't know what point you are making.

 

[bentanchorbolt]

It's no defense to Don at all just doing as you just said blame who is running the place since 2013 (officially 2014) and somehow it get circled back to Don instead of the person who in charge. MS def has a history of terrible decisions there's no argument there.

MS/Don Mattrick or whoever you want to blame here, failed to invest in the brand in the latter half of the Xbox 360 generation, which really showed how bad that choice was for about the next 5-6 years since games take a long time to make now. The top games during the Xbox One launch window were exclusives from Respawn, CryTek, and Insomniac, with the next big games coming from Remedy, because MS had zero real answers. Their biggest games were MCC which took like a million years to turn into something amazing, Forza and Forza H which were always bangers, and SoT from RARE fresh off being relegated to Kinect duty for the last half decade. If you want to blame Phil for that I don't really have a problem with that, he was a big dog during that era so he doesn't get to escape, but he also wasn't the guy where the buck stops during that early era, and it wasn't until around 2017 that MS decided to go "all in" with Xbox, so to speak.

So for me personally, I am primarily judging his work from 2017 and forward, when he became the de facto boss and has the blessing of MS to use their war chest for the brand. Since Don was pushed out and Phil took over, he gave us the One X that fixed the issues with the weak ass Xbox was, greenlit pro-consumer stuff like crossplay, play anywhere, back compat, etc. And then there is Game Pass which people love to downplay but me personally, its a game changer.

The problem is now he has 23 studios and potentially even more if the ABK deal goes through. Covid pushed things to the right but we should be out of that by this point, so this next year will be year that makes or breaks him. He doesn't have the excuses of rebuilding the brand to fall back on, its there, we are 2+ years since the lockdowns, etc. If Starfield isn't a banger, if Redfall isn't a quality game, if Avowed is pushed another year, and Forza 8 doesn't blow people away, then IMO his slack is now taught.