Support NeoGAF

[marquimvfs]

Lol damn my bag I sound like a hater. Dreamcast mil-cd was cracked and simple boot cd swap would trick the system and give access to everything.

Yeah. But how does this relate to Microsoft at all? To my knowledge, even if the system was capable of running some form of Windows CE, it wasn't used that much in games, and the Windows support wasn't responsible for the security flaws of the media. Hell, mil-cd support was dropped in later revisions and the Windows CE support was intact...
I don't think the Dreamcast failure was directly related to piracy, it was a bunch of bad decisions from Sega that left Dreamcast without killer apps and lack of momentum to fight the future coming PS2.

 

[yurinka]

Yes, Phil. The other consoles charge the same than you to the 3rd party publishers.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Phil aka word salad!

Aka spin doctor..

Aka big poppa word droppa

 

[Kamina]

People just meme with Jim Ryan gifs, but this Phil guy actually has real fans

i hear Bo_Hazem is a massive fan

 

[demigod]

Says the guy that wanted to put gamepass on playstation.

 

[SSfox]

In other words, the case he's making is: Industry standards are unfair to us! We should own everything and make the rules!

Exactly. Pure Monopoly company way of thinking. They have to destroy competition and own everything, or "it's not fair"

 

[Bo_Hazem]

i hear Bo_Hazem is a massive fan

If Fail Spencer has such a massive fanbase with all the disasters he's made so far, why not Jim?

Sad Jimmy...

 

[Pelta88]

Why is foss being posted even after mods banned him as a source?

 

[Ar¢tos]

If Fail Spencer has such a massive fanbase with all the disasters he's made so far, why not Jim?

Sad Jimmy...

Because Playstation people change often, for whatever reason.
You had Yoshida, the only one that had a real fanbase because he was there for some time, but then suddenly came House, then Layden and now Ryan.
Who knows how long until he is replaced? He has like 10% of Yoshida charisma (and the previous ones were just as bad).
It's not worth the emotional investment from Sony fans at this point.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Because Playstation people change often, for whatever reason.
You had Yoshida, the only one that had a real fanbase because he was there for some time, but then suddenly came House, then Layden and now Ryan.
Who knows how long until he is replaced? He has like 10% of Yoshida charisma (and the previous ones were just as bad).
It's not worth the emotional investment from Sony fans at this point.

Yeah he's a suit man, and great at what he's doing. Being attached to him is stupid. I like the guy myself, but xbox fans for example kinda worship Phil despite him dragging the brand through the mud.

 

[Drizzlehell]

How tragic.

 

[Ar¢tos]

Yeah he's a suit man, and great at what he's doing. Being attached to him is stupid. I like the guy myself, but xbox fans for example kinda worship Phil despite him dragging the brand through the mud.

Well Phil says he's a "gamer", and dresses like a gamer, tries the most to not look like "suit" and is so edgy, so FUCKING EDGY, that he even owns a PS5! *dab* *dab* *dab*
So obviously the extreme fanboys go hysterical, drop their pants and bend over.

 

[Clear]

The FTC is in a position where it's defending a larger market leader in an industry against a smaller competitor (in the industry, not size of overall company) and failing miserably.

Additionally, there's talk of an early ruling (preliminary injunction) because the case is going so bad for the FTC and Sony, but that probably won't happen. This is good for Microsoft as it allows them to lay the groundwork via testimony to prevent a successful appeal by the FTC (remember—there's only three members on the board, all Democrats, championing this, so the board has to vote to let it go or it gets appealed.)

If you don't like this guy's take, there are numerous other takes from established court watchers saying the same thing—that the case execution is borderline embarrassing for the FTC and Sony (by extension) at this point and the best thing that could come out of this is the FTC meets with Microsoft and approves the merger with conditions (e.g. Microsoft has to release CoD for the next 10 years on all platforms).

There's not consensus as to whether or not approval or a victory in court will help Microsoft with England and the UK…but that's a whole different discussion. But with Microsoft securing the EU, Japan, and eventually the US, it certainly puts the UK's ruling in an unsupported minority.

Sorry, but I'm not sure what precedents there are for a case like this, and thus how predictable the outcome is likely to be.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of this being in any way characterized as being an issue of MS vs Sony. Its an issue that will have ramifications for the entire sector even if Sony does stand to lose the most based on the present status quo.

Sony did not bring this case to the FTC for arbitration, they simply exercised their right to present their objections, which makes them witnesses as opposed to plaintiffs in a legal sense.

 

[Neofire]

If we check my "Phil Spencer Persona" Chart, this must be Victim Phil

Kumbaya Phil - Let's all play together | Xbox is a service | anti-console war. Peace and love (powered by XBOX) | Let's hold hands and be like Nintendo.
Bad guy Phil - We want to disrupt the market before Amazon or Apple | Xbox is a console | "Sony isn't are focus" | Nintendo needs us (gets a % for online play).
Victim Phil - The Industry is against us | Sony is being mean | Xbox is the outcast | It's Japan's fault | Nintendo never shares with us.

this dude just wont stop

An on point synopsis.

 

[SaucyJack]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what precedents there are for a case like this, and thus how predictable the outcome is likely to be.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of this being in any way characterized as being an issue of MS vs Sony. Its an issue that will have ramifications for the entire sector even if Sony does stand to lose the most based on the present status quo.

Sony did not bring this case to the FTC for arbitration, they simply exercised their right to present their objections, which makes them witnesses as opposed to plaintiffs in a legal sense.

Anyone characterising this as MS v Sony clearly doesn't understand competition regulation at all.

This is Microsoft seeking regulatory approval for a massive industry changing deal, approval that has been declined for now. It is their right to appeal, just as it is Sony and other market participants right to give evidence.

Microsoft's prior conduct is, of course, relevant in all of this. This doesn't help their case.

 

[VectorVictor]

Sorry, but I'm not sure what precedents there are for a case like this, and thus how predictable the outcome is likely to be.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of this being in any way characterized as being an issue of MS vs Sony. Its an issue that will have ramifications for the entire sector even if Sony does stand to lose the most based on the present status quo.

Sony did not bring this case to the FTC for arbitration, they simply exercised their right to present their objections, which makes them witnesses as opposed to plaintiffs in a legal sense.

Sony's objections and viewpoints have been the lynchpin for the FTC's prosecution—while they're not officially in bed together, the heavy use of Sony's arguments by the FTC make it look like the FTC is a proxy for Sony.

And there's *some* precedent, but not much. But it doesn't help that the FTC's argument is ham-fisted and weak at best, and the FTC's drubbing in court (per a large number of analysts who watch these cases for a living) was fueling the speculation about a preliminary injunction in favor of Microsoft.

That, and the FTC's poor showing is why the suggestions of the FTC possibly cutting a deal and approving the deal but with minor concessions is also likely…if Microsoft will allow it to happen (it's to Microsoft's benefit to continue and pad testimony to address/head off potential appeal issues). The FTC can't afford to lose this (or any) case horribly as it sets a precedent that other companies could weaponize against the FTC down the road).

If we're being optimistic, then the FTC is smart and they're playing the long game…and will cut a deal and end the case, as it's not just video games that this case could apply to.

I get that this board is full of Sony fanbois, but the current reality is that this deal will go through—the question is if it is with caveats, or if it will be litigated more via appeal in the US…and what happens when the UK ruling is in a minority. Personally…I hope it's with caveats and that Blizzard and it's licenses/devs were spun off to be independent again…but that's just selfish thinking on my part.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Anyone characterising this as MS v Sony clearly doesn't understand competition regulation at all.

This is Microsoft seeking regulatory approval for a massive industry changing deal, approval that has been declined for now. It is their right to appeal, just as it is Sony and other market participants right to give evidence.

Microsoft's prior conduct is, of course, relevant in all of this. This doesn't help their case.

MS PR and Activision's AOC Lulu have been stoking the Sony vs. flames this entire process. The low information gamers just suck it right up in their little fanatical confirmation biases.

 

[Topher]

Sony's objections and viewpoints have been the lynchpin for the FTC's prosecution—while they're not officially in bed together, the heavy use of Sony's arguments by the FTC make it look like the FTC is a proxy for Sony.

And there's *some* precedent, but not much. But it doesn't help that the FTC's argument is ham-fisted and weak at best, and the FTC's drubbing in court (per a large number of analysts who watch these cases for a living) was fueling the speculation about a preliminary injunction in favor of Microsoft.

That, and the FTC's poor showing is why the suggestions of the FTC possibly cutting a deal and approving the deal but with minor concessions is also likely…if Microsoft will allow it to happen (it's to Microsoft's benefit to continue and pad testimony to address/head off potential appeal issues). The FTC can't afford to lose this (or any) case horribly as it sets a precedent that other companies could weaponize against the FTC down the road).

If we're being optimistic, then the FTC is smart and they're playing the long game…and will cut a deal and end the case, as it's not just video games that this case could apply to.

The FTC's arguments for blocking are naturally going to align with competitors of the company wanting to make the acquisition. Even more so in markets where the number of competitors are relatively few. While I agree the FTC isn't doing particularly well in this case, I don't see a deal being made. Lina Khan has made statements in the past that winning cases is secondary to establishing case law. Perhaps those statements are just excuses she makes for losing so much, but either way, Microsoft already has concessions in place dealing with the EU so hard to imagine the FTC saving face going down that road. Might as well just go forward and get yet another loss. FTC should be used to that by now.

 

[Thirty7ven]

The FTC's arguments for blocking are naturally going to align with competitors of the company wanting to make the acquisition. Even more so in markets where the number of competitors are relatively few. While I agree the FTC isn't doing particularly well in this case, I don't see a deal being made. Lina Khan has made statements in the past that winning cases is secondary to establishing case law. Perhaps those statements are just excuses she makes for losing so much, but either way, Microsoft already has concessions in place dealing with the EU so hard to imagine the FTC saving face going down that road. Might as well just go forward and get yet another loss. FTC should be used to that by now.

EU? Where the market is heavily skewed to PlayStation on console and there's no natural competitor to Xcloud.

CMA outright blocked the merger.

FTC losing cases is a hollow narrative because they are doing what they are set out to do in terms of government agency directive, and by the way some people speak it's as if the FTC shouldn't even bother existing.

 

[Topher]

EU? Where the market is heavily skewed to PlayStation on console and there's no natural competitor to Xcloud.

CMA outright blocked the merger.

FTC losing cases is a hollow narrative because they are doing what they are set out to do in terms of government agency directive, and by the way some people speak it's as if the FTC shouldn't even bother existing.

I was only referring to the console aspect of the FTC's case which was what the post I replied to was talking about. But you are correct when it comes to nascent markets like cloud.

 

[Jadsey]

Phil is giving off some serious Reeeeee energy right now.

 

[Clear]

Sony's objections and viewpoints have been the lynchpin for the FTC's prosecution—while they're not officially in bed together, the heavy use of Sony's arguments by the FTC make it look like the FTC is a proxy for Sony.

And there's *some* precedent, but not much. But it doesn't help that the FTC's argument is ham-fisted and weak at best, and the FTC's drubbing in court (per a large number of analysts who watch these cases for a living) was fueling the speculation about a preliminary injunction in favor of Microsoft.

That, and the FTC's poor showing is why the suggestions of the FTC possibly cutting a deal and approving the deal but with minor concessions is also likely…if Microsoft will allow it to happen (it's to Microsoft's benefit to continue and pad testimony to address/head off potential appeal issues). The FTC can't afford to lose this (or any) case horribly as it sets a precedent that other companies could weaponize against the FTC down the road).

If we're being optimistic, then the FTC is smart and they're playing the long game…and will cut a deal and end the case, as it's not just video games that this case could apply to.

I get that this board is full of Sony fanbois, but the current reality is that this deal will go through—the question is if it is with caveats, or if it will be litigated more via appeal in the US…and what happens when the UK ruling is in a minority. Personally…I hope it's with caveats and that Blizzard and it's licenses/devs were spun off to be independent again…but that's just selfish thinking on my part.

Sorry mate but this sounds like fan-fiction to me.

Lina Khan was appointed in 2021 and immediately faced opposition from Facebook and Amazon because she was seen as a representative of the new school of thought regarding antitrust regulation within an increasingly digital economy.

As I've said repeatedly this boils down to the concept of network effects, wherein getting enough people on a certain service essentially acts as barrier to entry for any provider outside of that service to ever compete effectively.

This is the philosophic basis for the CMA decision; If you give one player a sufficient headstart, then noone can ever challenge them down the line.

 

[Mars2003]

Sega killed itself. 3 new consoles hardware in under 4 years. Sega cd , 32x, saga Saturn (32x only lasted a year) All of them expensive None of them sold well. Dreamcast died because it got pirated to death before the system could build a good user base.

There's no denying that Sega made things more difficult for themselves, but my point stands. Tomb Raider was a massive predatory move by Sony. It worked on me.

 

[Stooky]

There's no denying that Sega made things more difficult for themselves, but my point stands. Tomb Raider was a massive predatory move by Sony. It worked on me.

Sega lost me after 32x. I traded my genesis, 32x, etc and got ps1.

 

[bender]

and the previous ones were just as bad

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I miss these days