Support NeoGAF

[909er]

I doubt it's an April's Fool joke, it make too much sense. Not to mention that it's not a very funny joke (not that that's ever stopped someone).


Why wouldn't the stockholders like this? "Ok, you're charging less royalties to attract more good developers, which will result in more in-demand games, which will attract more gamers, which will attract more sales. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"


On what grounds? "Ah, you're making yourselves more competitive by reducing a charge on something that has no material cost in the first place! PLAY NICE!"


If this is true, and widespread, I'd certainly agree with you there.

Regarding the anti-trust thing, that's not how it works. Doing this will make MS bleed, and so would Sony trying to match such a deal. Only, MS has like 20 times as much blood as Sony, so MS taking a small hit could cripple Sony. I'm pretty sure that shit counts as anti-trust.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

 

[lexi]

On what grounds? "Ah, you're making yourselves more competitive by reducing a charge on something that has no material cost in the first place! PLAY NICE!"

-
-

Sec. 13a. Discrimination in rebates, discounts, or advertising service charges; underselling in particular localities; penalties

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to be a party to, or assist in, any transaction of sale, or contract to sell, which discriminates to his knowledge against competitors of the purchaser, in that, any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate, allowance, or advertising service charge available at the time of such transaction to said competitors in respect of a sale of goods of like grade, quality, and quantity; to sell, or contract to sell, goods in any part of the United States at prices lower than those exacted by said person elsewhere in the United States for the purpose of destroying competition, or eliminating a competitor in such part of the United States; or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.

 

[Sysgen]

Royalties are not goods. It's not like their giving the Xbox 2 away for free.

 

[DDayton]

See, the problem with that little anti-trust bit is that you have to be selling the same merchandise, but in a manner constructed to destroy the competition. When you see MS selling EA titles at $10 while they cost $40 everywhere else, JUST to hurt the competition and take a loss, you -might- have a case. Maybe. But even then, the Xbox titles are NOT the same as the PS/Nintendo titles.

 

[lexi]

I'm not making the argument MS would be breaking the law, However the term 'goods' is fairly loosely interpreted in the courts, It doesn't have to be a tangible object for you to undercut and/or outright block competitors.

I'm sure if Sony or Nintendo wanted to make a case of it, they could. Assuming this is real, of course

 

[Che]

I doubt it's an April's Fool joke, it make too much sense. Not to mention that it's not a very funny joke (not that that's ever stopped someone).

It's April first. Don't believe anything till it's April 2nd. And the site isn't that reliable.

Why wouldn't the stockholders like this? "Ok, you're charging less royalties to attract more good developers, which will result in more in-demand games, which will attract more gamers, which will attract more sales. THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH!"

OK you're totally wrong on this. Stockholders had this speech for the first console. You must be kidding yourself if you think that they're gonna have it for the second one too. If you watch MS's moves it's clear that Xbox2 will not be allowed to lose a single penny.

On what grounds? "Ah, you're making yourselves more competitive by reducing a charge on something that has no material cost in the first place! PLAY NICE!"

Like I specified in my edit I doubt it -USA allows corporations to do whatever they want it's the law of the jungle there (aka they should but won't get sued), although in EU they would probably get sued. I mean c'mon, it's unfair competition.

If this is true, and widespread, I'd certainly agree with you there.

nuff said.

 

[AntoneM]

Like I specified in my edit I doubt it -USA allows corporations to do whatever they want it's the law of the jungle there (aka they should but won't get sued), although in EU they would probably get sued. I mean c'mon, it's unfair competition.

you have a warped view of the United States.

 

[Hollywood]

It seems like developers are liking all three next gen consoles. PS3 because its the most powerful. XBox 2 because of developer friendly and power. And Revolution (at least according to Nintendo) because of its Gamecube style developing and low cost combined with new ideas. It should be interesting.

 

[CaptainABAB]

How in the world would anyone think that not charging some developers/publishers a royalty would result in anti-trust violations and/or dumping charges? Or is it just more people talking out of their butt with no idea what they're talking about?

Wondering the same thing.

There is no antitrust issue since MS does not have a monopoly in console sales.

This is not dumping because they are not selling a product below cost in one country compared to the price in another country. It can get complicated, so google for the term if you want more info.

Microsoft could make the xbox console $10 tomorrow and there is nothing anyone can do as long as the pricing was uniform (within reason) in all countries.

 

[Che]

you have a warped view of the United States.

No I actually don't. I've watched closely Microsoft's antitrust case and the whole Enron scam and I'm quite sure I don't. And just to specify in Europe they would get sued but they would probably found innocent or get fined with a trivial for the corporation amount of money. It's a corporate world we live in and we're just the pawns in their game. Face it.

Wondering the same thing.

There is no antitrust issue since MS does not have a monopoly in console sales.

This is not dumping because they are not selling a product below cost in one country compared to the price in another country. It can get complicated, so google for the term if you want more info.

Microsoft could make the xbox console $10 tomorrow and there is nothing anyone can do as long as the pricing was uniform (within reason) in all countries.

Oh nice, so every corporation that doesn't have the monopoly and wants to penetrate a certain industry area can sell its product for free till the competition goes out of business and they win. That's the spirit! As for the rest conserning the international corporations well that's the crap big corporations claim so that they keep screwing the little guys (and no Sony and Nintendo are not the little guys -I'm talking in general).

PS. I realize I'm a bit offtopic here but I really wanted to reply.

 

[lexi]

No I actually don't. I've watched closely Microsoft's antitrust case and the whole Enron scam and I'm quite sure I don't. And just to specify in Europe they would get sued but they would probably found innocent or get fined with a trivial for the corporation amount of money. It's a corporate world we live in and we're just the pawns in their game. Face it.

Oh nice, so every corporation that doesn't have the monopoly and wants to penetrate a certain industry area can sell its product for free till the competition goes out of business and they win. That's the spirit! As for the rest conserning the international corporations well that's the crap big corporations claim so that they keep screwing the little guys (and no Sony and Nintendo are not the little guys -I'm talking in general).

PS. I realize I'm a bit offtopic here but I really wanted to reply.

Your username seems really appropriate now.

 

[shpankey]

or, to sell, or contract to sell, goods at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor.

the problem is, where I bolded it. it could not be considered as "destroying" or "eliminating" because that would not happen. all MSFT would have to point to is Sony's complete and utter dominance and how there would be now way to destroy them. MSFT would be lucky to even split the market with them, and that's even a longshot.

i'm sorry, that section just wouldn't sell in court. no way Sony could claim they would be destroyed or eliminated because of it. they would be laughed out of court with their rediculous market share when compared to MSFT's tiny market share.

i also think claiming "royalties" as "goods" would be another huge stretch. goods can be a lot of things, but royalties, i don't think so.

 

[Folder]

The main problem with this story is that it's impossible that it's correct. Microsoft simply would not be allowed to offer royalty-free deals to publishers. The Xbox project has to be shown to be attempting to make money. If MS were offering these kind of deal in Japan, it would take about seventeen seconds before SCEI was told all about it. And Sony would cry foul straight away.

More likely, MS will offer breaks to publishers with projected unit sales over a certain point.

 

[Monk]

The main problem with this story is that it's impossible that it's correct. Microsoft simply would not be allowed to offer royalty-free deals to publishers. The Xbox project has to be shown to be attempting to make money. If MS were offering these kind of deal in Japan, it would take about seventeen seconds before SCEI was told all about it. And Sony would cry foul straight away.

More likely, MS will offer breaks to publishers with projected unit sales over a certain point.

Do you think Nintendo can do it? I mean, the GC isnt exactly booming with third party support hence no royalties coming in.

 

[Folder]

Do you think Nintendo can do it? I mean, the GC isnt exactly booming with third party support hence no royalties coming in.

It doesn't really matter. Every single thing Nintendo does makes money. The firm will always, always be around! Hooray!

 

[MrSingh]

I just love how retarded threads like this get.

 

[DCharlie]

i said it before and i'll say it again

ms are going to try to "out business" sony

which is the equivalent of trying to beat a no armed man at shotputting

and +1 to waht yellow ace said

i know what a plane looks like, but i dont pretend to be a pilot, why the fuck do mostof you consider yourselves experts on the fucking stock exchange/stock holders?

p,s, i said i wouldnt post - but its either you mongs or another trip in dixons duty free...

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

i said it before and i'll say it again

ms are going to try to "out business" sony

which is the equivalent of trying to beat a no armed man at shotputting

and +1 to waht yellow ace said

i know what a plane looks like, but i dont pretend to be a pilot, why the fuck do mostof you consider yourselves experts on the fucking stock exchange/stock holders?

p,s, i said i wouldnt post - but its either you mongs or another trip in dixons duty free...

€I think this may be a defensive move by MS, since €Sony seems to have locked away some exclusive titles for the PS2 in order to soften the impact €MS would have had. Sony got Soul €Calibur 3 exclusive, €Microsoft one ups them by giving publishers an incentive to making Xbox exclusive content.

 

[DCharlie]

i personally dont see sont getting a new soul calibur as any real coup to be honest. if it had been all sealed up as a ps3 launch title - then i could see the point - maybe thats part of the deal? - but i dont see what a new ps2 soul calibur would get sony

 

[The Abominable Snowman]

i personally dont see sont getting a new soul calibur as any real coup to be honest. if it had been all sealed up as a ps3 launch title - then i could see the point - maybe thats part of the deal? - but i dont see what a new ps2 soul calibur would get sony

They got it. More very appealing, exclusive titles to make the Xenon release more insignifigant to them the better.

You're going to have the $300 dollar Xenon with a GREAT assortment of launch titles that'll blow the conventional stuff away against a $99 PS2 and a pretty damn good number of exclusives.