They already decided BEFORE hearing the remedies. They are dead set on sabotaging and getting it blocked. This literally came out of Jim's mouth. Again BEFORE ever hearing remedies. This is not a rational actor and calls into question any reasoning they've brought up.
I am referring to Gaben's comments. He is a storefront, the impact is not the same as it would be for Sony or any other platform seller.
The impact is literally exactly the same. The only reason you have a platform is to get them on your storefront. I don't know if you even know what your own point is on this one.
CoD does not impact Valve in the same way as it does MS or Sony.
No… it doesn't.
Thats primarily the cause of ABK being on Sony platforms/store/whatever you want to call it.
Which makes it not the same. Valve is not reliant on selling hardware to push their storefront as their basis of their business model.
People still have to have a PC. I don't even know how this imaginary distinction is relevant to Call of Duty availability with vs. without a contract. Valve also literally tried to put out Steam Boxes, and now sells Steam Deck.
Reread what I wrote. Valve's business model is not reliant on the hardware they manufacture and sell. It is not the same.
Why is that relevant? Their names also aren't the same. Who cares?
Valve is not a direct competitor to Xbox. It's not even in the console or cloud gaming business. The situation is very different.
Steamdeck or Steamboxes will not make or break Valve. You are splitting hairs to try and make Valve sound the same as Sony or MS and their console business model. It is not the same.
Yep.
So why say they did? There's more than enough things to argue about that are real.
Do you just collect one Pokemon?
Valve is a direct competitor to the MS Store on PC, and Windows access was also a factor. You guys always have ridiculous ways of ruling out PC, Nintendo, Cloud, anything. They all literally sell the exact same games. His comments about how he feels about Call of Duty being available through their store are extremely clear.
There is also the fact that PS+ and XBL are heavily reliant on CoD. This isn't the case for Steam.
I love Mega brothels, brehs!
And their business model is not reliant on the hardware they sell. Hardware that receives major boosts due to CoD.Really not that difficult to understand.
- Valve is a competitor to PSN and Xbox Store.
- Valve is not a competitor to PS5 and Xbox Series X|S.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Plus and Game Pass.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Cloud and xCloud.
the brothels aren't the issue, the users on the other hand
It will be consultants who will hire people like DF to feedback and have the internal legal expertise to deal with arbitration .
They don't advertise it well nor do they charge for it but Valve does have a competitor to the Cloud services. By the logic that the store fronts are in competition, then so are the streaming services.Really not that difficult to understand.
- Valve is a competitor to PSN and Xbox Store.
- Valve is not a competitor to PS5 and Xbox Series X|S.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Plus and Game Pass.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Cloud and xCloud.
ah yes Microsoft is buying multiple publishers for Xbox completely altruisticly with no expectation to get a ROI after spending ~80 billion dollars, they're just doing it to benefit gamers not their own business interests or anything selfish like that
/threadthis Xbox is good/Sony is evil narrative is one of the absolute dumbest things to come out of this…
Really not that difficult to understand.
- Valve is a competitor to PSN and Xbox Store.
- Valve is not a competitor to PS5 and Xbox Series X|S.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Plus and Game Pass.
- Valve is also not a competitor to PS Cloud and xCloud.
yeah, its generally all about the $/€/£this Xbox is good/Sony is evil narrative is one of the absolute dumbest things to come out of this…
You completely missed his point. He's merely saying that if this was a big issue for the industry, a lot more companies besides a handful and Sony would be against it.ah yes Microsoft is buying multiple publishers for Xbox completely altruisticly with no expectation to get a ROI after spending ~80 billion dollars, they're just doing it to benefit gamers not their own business interests or anything selfish like that
this Xbox is good/Sony is evil narrative has to be one of the absolute dumbest things to come out of this…
I was wondering if anyone else would actually read what he wrote and notice that. I wasnt very optimistic.
This isn't the same as PS+ Premium or xCloud. This is like PS remote play and share play. It requires your PS or PC to be on I believe. It's not a cloud service.
ah yes Microsoft is buying multiple publishers for Xbox completely altruisticly with no expectation to get a ROI after spending ~80 billion dollars, they're just doing it to benefit gamers not their own business interests or anything selfish like that
this Xbox is good/Sony is evil narrative has to be one of the absolute dumbest things to come out of this…
This is Remote Play. A completely different thing than Cloud gaming.They don't advertise it well nor do they charge for it but Valve does have a competitor to the Cloud services. By the logic that the store fronts are in competition, then so are the streaming services.
Steam Remote Play
Play your games in exciting new ways with Steam Remote Play.store.steampowered.com
How many console manufacturers are there in the industry that compete with Xbox? There is only one, Sony, and it has problems with the deal.
That's not why they're doing it.
SteelCurtain 59
as to your point, you didn't say that but you did imply it because you claim that this deal isn't bad for the industry even though many have outlined concerns as to why that is not true including the the aforementioned regulators, instead you and others parrot the Xbox PR linesHe didn't miss it. The platform holders like Google and Sony are obviously against it because they are the ones affected. And they do it to benefit their business which directly benefits their gamers.
I mentioned google in my post as being the only other one against it, any other examples of actual people within the industry or companies being against it? Or is it just a few regulators and fanboys here? Also I get why you might consider somebody like me a "die-hard pro-Microsoft worshipper" because on Neogaf, even being neutral is way too pro-Microsoft for people here. Your last couple posts prove quite clearly you're a "die-hard pro-Sony worshipper" (using your own words) so have fun living in your bubbleI mean I wouldn't expect any of you to get it because of your own biases but Sony isn't the only one against it and it's been made clear many times why other publishers might not care as much
PlayStation has been made the focal point in part because they've been the most vocal (though not on social media unlike Xbox) to the regulators and Microsoft in turn has made them the focus on their PR campaign to paint themselves as the good guys trying to bring stuff to more people if only 'evil' Sony wouldn't be whispering evil things into the ears of the FTC/CMA/EU like Wormtongue
Google has also been against it among others and stated that Xbox buying Bethesda was part of what led to Stadia's closure
also what is up with most of the die-hard pro-Microsoft worshippers being users with accounts that even if they are from before this decade still don't have many posts until recently?
edit: if you think I'm posting this for likes that's just showing your further ignorance given my reaction score is tiny compared to the actual fanboys on here who do that
If the regulators actually let them buy ATVI, I don't see what the issue would be with letting them buy EA, TTWO, UBSFY, etc. Microsoft might as well buy out the entire West and try to deny the entire IP of the West to PlayStation because God knows the regulators are clueless and don't do their jobs if they let MSFT-ATVI go through.
