Sosokrates
Report me if I continue to console war
I dont see why not in the future xbox could have like a PC games hub.It would not be completely open but many PC games would come to it.
RUMOUR: Polygon - Microsoft is looking to purchase EA, Valve or PUBG
- Thread starter Nintendo Switch
- Start date
I dont see why not in the future xbox could have like a PC games hub.It would not be completely open but many PC games would come to it.
Calibos
Member
I was going to take the time to respond to each of your bullets, but then I realized how completely skewed and crazy this list is. Some of it while true, is still fanboy ranting at best...then the other 70% of it is insane to put on MS solely.
Don Mattrick, Kinect, and the Original Xb1 reveal are the ones that I could get on board with hating and laying at MS's feet...The RRoD fiasco was a shameful situation, but MS also footed a gigantic bill for repairing and replacing any and all XB360s until the problem was fixed. Paying for an online service was introduced on console by MS...but that service was and is still a the gold standard. It just crushes everything else in every category.
Horse Armor is MS's fault? Really?
Ads?
Software cancellation and studio closure is only an MS thing?
Cut content?
Moneyhats? Hahahahaha...this one is especially funny for some reason....
You need to do some research....
...and how is the Game Pass and or EA access a bad thing for gamers?
michaelius
Banned
Deny it as much as you want but Microsoft has been at the forefront of each anti consumer change in the industry
- paid online
- microtransactions and dlc
- trying to kill used games sales
- removing your control over your own operating system and trying to change pc gaming into walled garden
and now they are targeting game ownership to make it another service with monthly fee
Pejo
Member
I admit it's a bit of a rant, but I think a fair amount of my points still stand. Again, I'm not saying that other companies haven't run with plenty of these ideas after they saw Microsoft making tons of money from it, but I still consider it bad for consumers of gaming. Would others have eventually done some of this stuff on their own? Maybe, but I don't have a crystal ball.
I have no interest in them buying Steam and then turning it into an mess of a mobile app or storefront. We've already seen Microsoft's vision of a mobile platform that failed (despite me actually loving Windows Phone 10 and wishing they would have gotten the dev/user support the amazing OS deserved). Couple this with their business practices of removing game ownership and charging for literally anything they can get away with, it doesn't look like a good prospect.
Again I'd like to ask, what good do you see of them buying Valve for general gamers and not just as an Xbox fan checkbox?
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Part of me agrees only in the sense Valve does very little as far as game development. The argue could be made about Microsoft too but they still do release games every year. Trouble is Microsoft would then have the operating system and the gaming sector all in one and nobody really wants a monopoly. Steam prices are much better than Windows store prices so that's another concern.
This also concerns me, they would definitely be pushing Xbox Live Gold on the PC again.
ReBurn
Gold Member
To be fair Valve is kind of messing it up on their own.
Mahadev
Member
Not nearly as much as Microsoft would or does with the Windows Store. Steam has its problems but as far as I'm concerned it's doing its job competently.
Boss Man
Member
Man, Valve and EA both make pretty good sense it's just a matter of how much they want to spend. EA would immediately give them not only a barn full of exclusive IPs (which they lack), but they're locking down a huge chunk of the games that their demographic cares about as exclusives. An EA acquisition would be like paying-to-win the console space outright.
Last edited:
My favourite part about MS is that instead of creating new content and growing the pie, they often act like this is a zero sum game. Apparently the only way for them to fix their exclusive problem isn't to build new exclusive games that add to the medium, it's to buy a publisher so you can eat a bigger slice of the pie and deny games from a wider audience.
12Dannu123
Member
They won't make them exclusive. They will instead add them to Game Pass and will work on Xbox and Windows 10 and possibly Switch. So these users only need to pay $10 per month for 100s of games (optional) whereas Sony users will have to pay $60 per game.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
LOL, you have it all figured out. The downfall of Sony and rise of the benevolent MS.
12Dannu123
Member
Agreed, it's basically a new way of making exclusives while not being exclusive.
Last edited:
Codes 208
Member
I kinda concur. But I think if MS were to deny the same services to PS that they'd give to Nintendo, it would be more related to Sony's own hesitation to make that kind of agreement. Seeing as they denied EA Access and the cross-platform gaming with Minecraft and Rocket League (atleast with the other two console holders)
But who knows.
Phoenix RISING
Banned
Acquiring EA will solve their problem of not having first party games
Nintendo Switch
Banned
Sounds like you're describing EA. Ooh, Criterion is making great arcade racing games that're vastly more fun than our NFS games, we don't want competition, let's buy them and make them switch to making NFS games instead
Last edited:
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Sony's motto has been to aquire ip's so I'm not sure why there is such concern over Microsoft denying gamers when it's actually Sony who is locking others out. What if Microsoft is heading towards getting a major publisher like EA and putting all their games on Game Pass while still putting those games on the PS4? This would actually highlight even more how Sony is closing itself off by blocking things like EA Access and console crossplay and not supporting backwards compatability. This could turn the whole industry upside down because the value propisition of having EA games along with 1st party Microsoft titles launching at the same time on Game Pass for a low monthly fee. This would put even more pressure on Sony to create even more exclusive titles.
This does have some legs to it. Imagine Game Pass on Switch and Sony once again denying it's customers the option.
Last edited:
WaterAstro
Member
Louis Cyphre
Banned
They do both. Who owns Heavenly Sword and isn't that why Ninja Theory went on to make Enslaved? How about Insomniac titles? Sony also likes to get full exclusives as opposed to timed like Microsoft does. Street Fighter, No Man's Sky and so on. So this idea that Microsoft is out to deny gamers is laughable.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
What? I've never heard of this before. Can you show me where Ninja Theory said this?
Bad examples. Neither are exclusives.
If any truth is behind this rumour, that is the interest of microsoft on expanding their third party games support.
I don't believe in a full buyout of these companies.
keeping it real is better.
In this precise moment MS doesn't have the "market power" to buy anything.
ok they are making money, but their revelance is less and less.
In the long run their cannot keep the pace of Sony.
If this is like another step into shifting to the hybrid "PCX" thing that could be more probable.
Even if they seems rivals Valve and MS could join a "SteamWin" set of machines if money is there.
I repeat that I know people would not like the idea of MS not producing hardware, but really better we start to accept that this could in the same basket of options too.
I don't believe in a full buyout of these companies.
keeping it real is better.
In this precise moment MS doesn't have the "market power" to buy anything.
ok they are making money, but their revelance is less and less.
In the long run their cannot keep the pace of Sony.
If this is like another step into shifting to the hybrid "PCX" thing that could be more probable.
Even if they seems rivals Valve and MS could join a "SteamWin" set of machines if money is there.
I repeat that I know people would not like the idea of MS not producing hardware, but really better we start to accept that this could in the same basket of options too.
Geese Howard
Neo Member
Valve? How?
Koala Driving a Ferrari
Member
If this somehow means that we'll get a brand new entry in the Burnout series then I'm all for MS purchasing EA. The takeover is never going to happen but the possibities are a hell of a lot of fun to think about.
There are so many fantastic legacy EA properties that have been sadly left to wither on the vine.
There are so many fantastic legacy EA properties that have been sadly left to wither on the vine.
Lort
Banned
Perfect examples MS and Sony both pay for console exclusivity.
Rodolink
Member
Official "Xbox" branded Steam machines would be really nice
I just recently had to uninstall Forza Horizon 3 from my PC as it would crash every time I try to run it and the DLC wouldnt recognise it was installed.
I could often fix it by installing a random app from the MS store, but it would be broken again next time I wanted to play the game.
Most frustrating experience I have had with PC games in years as its a really really good game...just broken.
MS really doesn't respect its customers leaving the windows store as broken as it is.
I could often fix it by installing a random app from the MS store, but it would be broken again next time I wanted to play the game.
Most frustrating experience I have had with PC games in years as its a really really good game...just broken.
MS really doesn't respect its customers leaving the windows store as broken as it is.
Last edited:
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Oh, "console exclusivity". That old marketing term.
Sorry, I don't subscribe to marketing redefinitions of standard english words.
When you opt to insert a qualifier aside an absolute, you are redefining that term to absurdist levels ("your truth", "very unique", "console exclusive")
Something is either exclusive or it isn't. Those aren't. They are bad examples of exclusivity.
Last edited:
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Sorry, I didn't know we had to subscribe to your course what is a true exclusive 101 so that we too couldn't understand both examples trying to keep games off of competitive platforms.
Mr White
Member
Microsoft already have big pool of great legacy IPs. Problem is they don't use them themselves.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
There is a distinct difference in Sony creating an IP with a co-operative business and creative process from the start (Heavenly Sword, Bloodborne, R&C, etc) and coming in at the end of development or a finished product and buying exclusivity. MS is much more about the latter.
MrDanGuy
Member
I find it hilarious that since Microsoft has been releasing gaming on Xbox, and PC they can't be "Xbox Exclusives". I find it comical when someone says "well it's not an exclusive because it was on PC".
Exclusive is related to the platform.
if you can find the same game on another platform then is no more exclusive.
during 16 bit era there were a lot of ports, and the console war was about the differences between snes and md version of the same game.
Exclusives were usually related only to the first party games only or second/third party agreements (like old square for nintendo).
Nintendo didn't need to buy Square.
If MS needs to buy EA is a problem.
if you can find the same game on another platform then is no more exclusive.
during 16 bit era there were a lot of ports, and the console war was about the differences between snes and md version of the same game.
Exclusives were usually related only to the first party games only or second/third party agreements (like old square for nintendo).
Nintendo didn't need to buy Square.
If MS needs to buy EA is a problem.
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
OK. I'll stick with English, you can subscribe to whatever you like.
I understand what the word 'exclusive' means. If others find that objectionable because it means they have to revise their platform-centric arguments, that's on them.
These "ah, but exclusive actually means..." concerns should be taken up with the Oxford English Dictionary, not me.
Your original qualifier was 'full exclusive' but now we're talking about 'console exclusive' and 'true exclusive' .. ??
As I said, qualifiers for absolutes are absurd. This exchange is a perfect example of this.
You appear to have neglected to address my query regarding your statement about Ninja Theory in your response. I'd be very interested to learn where and when they said this. Thanks.
Last edited:
Calibos
Member
MS must be responsible for everything you don't like then right...Sony hasn't ever done anything anti-consumer nor are they a "walled garden" right? Steam isn't a "walled garden?" This kind of argument and comparison is ridiculous and impossible to me...moving goal posts and twisting up things to constantly fit a tolerable narrative is so tiring. I'll bite though...
- Paid Online - MS started this on console...but if it wasn't "paid" it wouldn't exist. Rose colored glasses make people forget what Xbox Live brought to the table as far as stability, integrated social features etc...It forced Sony and PC to get better at Online service and gaming and pushed people towards a Broadband future. I don't like paying for it either, but overlooking why we paid is leaving out the most important part of your point.
- microtransactions and dlc - PUBLISHER/DEVELOPER DRIVEN. Yes, Horse Armor was a thing...but it was Bethesda's thing...
- trying to kill used game sales - Developers lose money on used games. Publishers lose money on used games. MS was looking for that digital future...it was the internet who came up with this idea that MS was trying to kill used games. Developers/Publishers were at the forefront of this.
- walled garden - this is a mythological creature that people point to MS as trying to create...The reality is that it already exists. Sony has one. Steam has one that is missing a few bricks to make it impenetrable. EA has a walled garden in Origin. Apple has one etc... If anything, MS is behind the times with their shitty store and poor support for improving it. Which is why buying Valve would be amazing for them.
Targeting game ownership by having gamepass? This is an insane statement to me...Game rental and subscription services are all over the place right now...Gamefly, Playstation Now, EA/Origin Access...why are you singling out MS here?
Last edited:
Nikana
Go Go Neo Rangers!
Oh the good ol anti consumerist line is back from 2013 isn't it.
I also don't see how Microsoft was trying to kill uused games when the original polcies of the bone would of allowed people to trade in games. Granted, it was a shit show and they had zero details.of how it would work or even when, but it seems they went out of their way to make that a thing.
I don't think anybody can argue the original policies of the bone we're very confusing and should of been optional, but there were things in there that we're cool and benefitted the consumer like digital sharing. It wasn't all bad and "anti consumerist."
Lort
Banned
Microsoft leeds the industry and Sony and Valve play catch up.
Paid online - removed cheaters and griefers.. still a massive problem on pc .. if sony is so pro consumer why did they copy this?
Dlc and microtransactions- do u really think this wouldnt have happened if MS didnt leed the lindustry? The real problem is Valves hat reselling industry and mobile games not MS.
Used game sales - ever heard of stream they sell only digital games .. ever heard of phones and tablets also believe it or not digital only.
Walled garden - Ever heard of Playstation? Fyi they were around before xbox !! Or snes or any console ever.. or ios or android lol
Just lol
Koala Driving a Ferrari
Member
This is known. But after spending an obscene amount of cash on a corporate take over, Microsoft would want something to show for it. I think it'd be incredibly reductive and cynical to assume that some fantastic EA IPs wouldn't get a new lease of life with new management at the helm.
Last edited:
Louis Cyphre
Banned
I never implied which course of action is better, my response was to someone suggesting Microsoft is trying to deny games from a larger audience when in fact Soiny is far more aggressive in locking down ip's from going to competitive platforms.
My original qualifier was the control of ip's and how developers such as Ninja Theory and Insomniac wanted more control over those ip's. They would have loved to do Heavenly Sword 2 for example but it was owned by Sony so they decided to do Enslaved and release it on multiple systems. Insomniac has been more vocal about the control of their own ip's in the past when they decided to part ways as a 2nd party developer from Sony and branch out to multiplat devbelopment as well. This is why I laugh as those who think it's Microsoft trying to keep gamers away. Sure they may waste their resources trying to gain timed exclusives like Tomb Raider but they most always end up on competitive platforms later on, so who of the two wants more control and limit its access more than the other?
VectorVictor
Member
Question--why isn't anyone talking about Ubisoft being up for potential buyout? They've been fending off a hostile takeover for some time--perhaps shareholders choose the lesser of evils and sell to Microsoft instead of Vevendi (which will try another hostile takeover...it's a question of when, and not if).
The impact isn't as significant as buying EA, but there are some quality former third party franchises that would turn heads suddenly going exclusive on Microsoft.
The impact isn't as significant as buying EA, but there are some quality former third party franchises that would turn heads suddenly going exclusive on Microsoft.
no need to buy.
-create a reference hardware with one or more OEM (like google makes with phones, or Valve itself does with SteamVR and steam machines).
-Let Lenovo, Dell, Acer jump on board
-redefine PC consumer gaming with this hybrid console/pc and revive the gaming desktop market, a billion machines market target still there despite mobile.
-get the best of the 2 worlds with all guys aboard(developers, publishers, hardware producers) and wall all around a win11 gaming kernel
-MS will become the only leader of hybrid pc machines, like now Nintendo is the only leader of hybrid console.
As long MS will continue with Nadella vision of things they will be alone, they will find in Valve or Ea or Ubisoft only rivals with their own walled gardens.
if they make them coexhist in their bigger walled garden everybody is happy and will join.
Vivendi is facing a lot of problems, they will try sure, but each day it seems very difficult for them, they are making mistakes not only in france but also in the rest of Europe, soon or after EU Commission will come after them.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-m...ollore-for-alleged-market-abuse-idUKKBN1631UM
http://www.repubblica.it/economia/f...i_di_perdite_su_telecom_e_mediaset-181336497/
Schrödinger's cat
Banned
Your grasp of the word 'qualifier' seems to be as poor as that of 'exclusive'. You've taken a word, distorted its meaning, misused it and inserted into your statement as some kind of rebuttal.
Your earlier statement:
You keep repeating this and you keep not providing a source where Ninja Theory said this, in spite of being asked multiple times.
Though, by this point, it doesn't really matter. You're steam-rolling ahead - either accidentally or deliberately - and keep trying to make some argument that amounts to "Sony too" - which isn't an argument, it's a deflection of some point being made about some other company. Given the topic of the thread we're in, I can't really see why that goal, or the methods used to reach it, especially matter. I can hazard a guess though.
Thanks for your time, I shan't take up any more of it.
Last edited: