Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]

Rozalia1 · July 18, 2023

3 hours ago, Eagle said:

What defending? I've been trying to make it clear throughout this whole conversation that I deeply loathe corporations, appreciate that people are starting to deeply loathe Microsoft too but wish that loathe would extend to all of them and not just one. Unless you are trying to imply I, and others, are somehow paid Microsoft defenders like the ones on social media, which I hope is not the case (and the effectivity of such a move if it were to happen is questionable at best).

Well yeah, the West also has theoretical controls in place to stop buyouts. This whole situation is an insight as to how they don't actually work when faced against a megacorp because of the amount of power they hold.

Well, if a studio's current game and all their previous games were on that platform already, that's already a consolidation which is just further cemented by a buyout. Let me make this clear once again: I think exclusivity in general is a scam made to convince people that the corporations just want "competitiveness", given that it's in fact one of the most anti-competitive moves ever. My ideal future would be one where all current PS exclusives are on all platforms, just as all Xbox exclusives and the Nintendo exclusives and even the PC exclusives too (when not limited by hardware capabilities, of course, since that is a genuine issue for devs to work with and they're the ones I solidarize with in this whole mess).

And, as a quick footnote (I won't delve much into the topic for obvious reasons), even ignoring how that's a completely absurd and out-of-left-field analogy (we're reaching Godwin's law territory)... that's not really a gotcha? Like, again, it's a deeply unfitting analogy and thus things obviously don't equate between the two situations, but the overall principle that there's no black-and-white in war is a very good one to hold, even in the Russia-Ukraine war (even if, of course, Russia is the main aggressor in that scenario and most people won't disagree).

- - -

note: The quotes (other than the last one) are visibly out of order. It's not cherrypicking and I'm sorry if it looks like such because I'm aware it is indeed a bit confusing, I just responded them stream-of-consciousnessly and couldn't really structure them properly afterwards because of how difficult it is to do so on mobile.

What you don't seem to understand is that when someone, in this case Microsoft, is getting attacked for X reason, and someone comes in and tries to rubbish it/side track it by pointing to Sony/Nintendo, then they're essentially defending Microsoft.

I thought all companies were the same? Now you're telling me that Microsoft is actually worse because they're a mega corp that can overcome governments to this degree. Do you think Nintendo could do what Microsoft has been doing? Sony? We can go smaller. As I've told you, these companies are not the same. We get it, they're not pure hearted saints, but that does not mean they are the same as Microsoft. There are levels to things. Heck, even Phil Spencer with his anti-Google/Amazon comments said as such. That Microsoft could trust Sony/Nintendo in gaming, but Google/Amazon could not be.

Then just stop defending them? You think it unfair that Microsoft is getting attacked while others aren't? And? Why would you care exactly? Why do the attackers need to preface their comments with talk of 'by the way all companies suck, including Sony/Nintendo'? Where have you seen that be a thing in anything in life?

Completely incorrect. Exclusives are indeed competition hence why the likes of third party exclusivity deals haven't been deemed illegal. Without exclusives competition decreases heavily and platform holders can either act as an oligarchy, or with the likes of Microsoft in play, drown the others with money and destroy them with ease. Look at what exclusives has meant when we look at Microsoft and Nintendo. Microsoft could tomorrow spend 1 trillion on their gaming division if they want and they will not do 1 single bit of damage to Nintendo. The reason for that is not the hardware that Nintendo has. It ain't the services they have. It is the exclusives.

It isn't out of left field. I've seen people pull this behaviour elsewhere on the matter of that war. These sort of things 'but they do bad things too' is a total waste of time that only ultimately defends the greater evil, if they mean to or not. The war is actually indeed black and white. Russia is the aggressor, they should be repelled, and everything will be better for it. The end. Likewise, Microsoft is the aggressor, they should be repelled, and everything will be better for it.

That is fine, likewise do not misunderstand my responses. I am not angry or any such thing. What I am left wondering however is what exactly you're expecting people to do. People have attacked Microsoft, but Sony/Nintendo are bad too... okay. So what are we to do exactly? Not attack Microsoft unless we also attack Sony/Nintendo? Why can't we just attack one, the clearly worse party by the way and the relevant subject in this thread by the way, and leave the rest unsaid? I think it is best to leave this sort of thing here. Microsoft will be fine getting attacked, they've got quite the extensive network operating to defend them already.

AJ_-_808 · July 18, 2023

Quote

My ideal future would be one where all current PS exclusives are on all platforms, just as all Xbox exclusives and the Nintendo exclusives and even the PC exclusives too

So, in this scenario, what would be the point of having a 3 console Markey if they're all going to have the same things?

It'll come down to who puts out the best hardware and eventually lead to 2 consoles being severely diminished or exiting the market leaving a... megacorp with a monopoly.

3rd party publishers are the 4th player in the market and shouldn't be allowed to be bought out in such large portions by any platform holder. You can rail against megacorps all you want, but your ideal future isn't realistic at all.

I think you need to find a better balance because your stance against megacorps (to the point you chastise organic acquisitions even) is far too extreme

Edit

Anyway, I'm done for now.

It'll be hilarious if Acti tries to renegotiate for a better price and MS decides to look at other publishers (although that isn't good either)

Edited July 18, 2023 by AJ_-_808

Eagle · July 18, 2023

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

What you don't seem to understand is that when someone, in this case Microsoft, is getting attacked for X reason, and someone comes in and tries to sidetrack it by pointing to Sony/Nintendo, then they're essentially defending Microsoft.

It would be a sidetrack if this thread was still in its first stages, but by this point, everything that had to be said against Microsoft was already said (which is very good). It's more of an addendum: don't fall into the trap of idolizing other corporations just because they're not the one that happens to be the target of attention due to being particularly bold and upfront about their objectives.

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

I thought all companies were the same? Now you're telling me that Microsoft is actually worse because they're a megacorp that can overcome governments to this degree? Do you think Nintendo could do what Microsoft has been doing? Sony? We can go smaller. As I've told you, these companies are not the same. We get it, they're not pure-hearted saints, but that does not mean they are the same as Microsoft. There are levels to things. Heck, even Phil Spencer with his anti-Google/Amazon comments said as such. That Microsoft could trust Sony/Nintendo in gaming, but Google/Amazon could not be trusted.

Actually, yeah, I do think so. The power of lobbying in the current state of affairs is scary. (Also, unthanks for reminding me of the possibility that this might motivate Google, Amazon and similar trillion-dollar companies to start making their own moves. shudders)

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

You think it unfair that Microsoft is getting attacked while others aren't? And? Why would you care, exactly? Why do the attackers need to preface their comments with talk of 'by the way all companies suck, including Sony/Nintendo'? Where have you seen that be a thing in anything in life?

"Unfair" is not exactly the correct word, I'd say "unwise" is more like it. I find it great that Microsoft is getting attacked, but I think that care must be taken not to turn this into a cartoonish heroes vs. villains situation because ultimately it doesn't reflect the reality of things and just sets one up to be disappointed whenever the "heroes" turn out to be just as bad. There's no need to preface comments with it, just coming to the realization is already enough.

As for why I care, it's because, again, I loathe corporations and I just want to try and make people more wary of them, even if only slightly. "But you can do nothing to stop them on any scale that actually matters," you might say, which is sadly true but then again why is anyone commenting on this thread in the first place by that logic?

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

Completely incorrect. Exclusives are indeed competition, hence why the likes of third-party exclusivity deals haven't been deemed illegal. Without exclusives, competition decreases heavily and platform holders can either act as an oligarchy, or with the likes of Microsoft in play, drown the others with money and destroy them with ease. Look at what exclusives has meant when we look at Microsoft and Nintendo. Microsoft could tomorrow spend 1 trillion on their gaming division if they want and they will not do one single bit of damage to Nintendo. The reason for that is not the hardware that Nintendo has. It ain't the services they have. It is the exclusives.

Exclusivity deals aren't illegal because the people making the laws (they're not in a category above materiality, after all; they are made by a certain group of people with a certain objective in mind) don't have anything to gain with them being so (and, conversely, everything to gain with them not being so). Without exclusives, competition would increase because then other groups would be able to make their own platforms without the prohibitiveness of being locked out of a certain group of games and thus losing a major part of its appeal from the get-go as a result.

The true way of generating competition, if it was actually the goal (which it's not), would be to make features in your console that would draw people's attention to it and make it worthy of being acquired – not arbitrarily locking games away and forcing an user to start using a particular platform if they want any chance of getting their hands in them (to be fair, in Nintendo's case, that can thankfully be dealt with through emulation; unfortunately, technology's not quite there for the others yet).

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

What I am left wondering, however, is what exactly you're expecting people to do. People have attacked Microsoft, but Sony/Nintendo are bad too... okay. So what are we to do exactly? Not attack Microsoft unless we also attack Sony/Nintendo? Why can't we just attack one, the clearly worse party and the relevant subject in this thread by the way, and leave the rest unsaid? I think it is best to leave this sort of thing here. Microsoft will be fine getting attacked, they've got quite the extensive network operating to defend them already.

(yes, I am skipping the war thing because it's a whole other can of worms and one that is irrelevant to the topic at hand; it would require a thread of its own, one which I'm not even sure could or should exist in this site)

What I hope (not expect, because well, what I unfortunately expect is the opposite) is merely that people recognize that megacorps aren't all that different from each other and none of them have the industry's best interests in mind; I decided to leave my initial comment not because people were not attacking Sony/Nintendo, it was because people were getting to the point of defending them in the process of attacking the other. And that I personally see as a worrying thing.

23 minutes ago, AJ_-_808 said:

So, in this scenario, what would be the point of having a 3-console market if they're all going to have the same things?

It'll come down to who puts out the best hardware and eventually lead to 2 consoles being severely diminished or exiting the market, leaving a... megacorp with a monopoly.

The prohibitiveness of acquiring the hardware to even be able to make platforms (and thus, do the process of investing in making them unique through features and not through locking certain games away from others, as I mentioned) is indeed a good point – it is another thing that would need to change.

mcnichoj · July 18, 2023

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

You're just wrong to question Nintendo's excellence

Bro, you're not supposed to post cringe on main.

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

but with other companies arguments can be at least be made without them being a joke.

I bet Microsoft employees stay up at night worried about what you think of their trillion dollar company.

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

You could be saying a small company like Gust is better than Nintendo and you'd be more credible.

Gust who is owned by Koei Tecmo? The company that needs to get rid of all pretense already and just rename themselves to Japanese EA?

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

So you didn't like those spinoffs? Okay, cool, at least there are spinoffs? We look at Xbox and... and... ??? As you want to talk recent don't give me some Xbox One launch stuff.

Deadrising 3, Killer Instinct, Ryse (which despite everyone shitting on when it was an Xbox exclusive, got massive praise once it hit Steam) and Crimson Dragon. Then it got Titanfall 1 (easily the best shooter of the gen) and PvZ Garden Warfare during launch window.

Switch dropped Q1 with Zelda and didn't get Mario till Q4.

What did PS4 have? Killzone that me and five other people cared about? Bloodborne released a whole year after Titanfall 1 came out. It was so bad that it became a meme that it was the only game the console had.

11 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

??? You tell me that only one iteration should be released of a fighting game per generation...then state that Killer Instinct was last generation. Okay then, where is the new Killer instinct? Not that you're correct on the 1 per generation thing anyway. Capcom who you mention as knowing what to do released 4 different versions of Street Fighter 4 in the same generation. A move to 1 generation is a result of companies being strong enough to get by on selling characters and making more money than releasing the game. Even then, Mortal Kombat released 2 games in the last generation which goes against your claim.

MAIN! MAIN! MAIN! Fucking reading comprehension. I use specific phrasing for a reason.

Capcom wanted to do major changes to the game but were limited by the hardware. They had to release Super and an iteration of a game isn't as bad as a whole new entry because usually a new entry will change mechanics entirely and do cuts to the roster. This is especially important for fighting games as it can fragment the playerbase.

Also selling DLC characters isn't as lucrative as you think it is. Way more people will buy the base game than the amount of people that will buy any of the content that gets released for it afterwards. All the Street Fighter V content was just filler to keep their most die hard players engaged with the franchise until they could release the next entry.

As for MK they're a completely different beast. They're not tied to the FGC in the same way as other fighters and the majority of their playerbase is normies that just play the game for the campaign or to "ooh" and "ahh" at Fatalities. The two releases were also buffered by Injustice 2. In theory Capcom and Bamco could do a similar thing like SF, Darkstalkers and SF or Tekken, Soul Calibur and Tekken but I don't think that many people care about Darkstalkers and SC fell off hard in popularity thanks to the poor reception of SC5.

12 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

We're talking Xbox and Nintendo and you randomly decide to take a shot at the Vita? As has been said, your behaviour looks very odd when you spend so much time attacking Sony/Nintendo and Microsoft gets nothing

I'm continuing my narrative that all these companies suck. You want to harp on this one fighting game but that was a whole ass console. I also really like the Vita, it's actually Sony I'm hating on for dropping the ball so hard as they did with it. All the praise the Switch gets for bringing console quality games on the go should have gone to the Vita.

12 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

you're out here saying Microsoft is better

Nope, never said this.

Ashande · July 18, 2023

On 7/17/2023 at 11:31 AM, Eagle said:

On 7/17/2023 at 1:11 PM, mcnichoj said:

What they've done with Killer Instinct and Rare Replay is lightyears better than what Nintendo has done with their 50+ IPs that are rotting away.

Releasing a mid-tier fighting game and a compilation disc of games ranging from seven to thirty+ years old, and doing both a decade ago with nothing major to speak of since (except for the GoldenEye port, which I’ve heard is atrocious) doesn’t exactly feel like a shining feather in their cap. Nintendo has a giant backlog of IPs because Nintendo has been at this for over 40 years, doing quite a lot of experimental stuff that may or may not have panned out. For every Kid Icarus or Clu Clu Land that’s rotting in the backlog somewhere, there’s a new Kirby, Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, or Mario Kart, while Microsoft swallows IPs and then sits on them until they die out. Where’s a new Viva Pinata? How about a current-gen Gears? Should we be begging for another Blinx the Time Sweeper? Microsoft’s got plenty of dead soldiers in the pile; less of them, because they haven’t been at it as long, but they also don’t have nearly as many that are still going, haven’t started a new franchise in forever, and completely bungled the most recent release of what is likely their best known franchise.

I’d like to see more compilations like Rare Replay (on/of any platform; I’d kill for a Konami MSX & NES collection, f’rex), and I liked Killer Instinct in theory (one of the reasons I bought an Xbox One), but I don’t know that marking them as the gold standard is all that accurate.

6 hours ago, Eagle said:

[…]

Well, if a studio's current game and all their previous games were on that platform already, that's already a consolidation which is just further cemented by a buyout. Let me make this clear once again: I think exclusivity in general is a scam made to convince people that the corporations just want "competitiveness", given that it's in fact one of the most anti-competitive moves ever. My ideal future would be one where all current PS exclusives are on all platforms, just as all Xbox exclusives and the Nintendo exclusives and even the PC exclusives too (when not limited by hardware capabilities, of course, since that is a genuine issue for devs to work with and they're the ones I solidarize with in this whole mess).

[…]

1 hour ago, Eagle said:

[…]

Exclusivity deals aren't illegal because the people making the laws (they're not in a category above materiality, after all; they are made by a certain group of people with a certain objective in mind) don't have anything to gain with them being so (and, conversely, everything to gain with them not being so). Without exclusives, competition would increase because then other groups would be able to make their own platforms without the prohibitiveness of being locked out of a certain group of games and thus losing a major part of its appeal from the get-go as a result.

The true way of generating competition, if it was actually the goal (which it's not), would be to make features in your console that would draw people's attention to it and make it worthy of being acquired – not arbitrarily locking games away and forcing an user to start using a particular platform if they want any chance of getting their hands in them (to be fair, in Nintendo's case, that can thankfully be dealt with through emulation; unfortunately, technology's not quite there for the others yet).

[…]

Setting aside the Space Monkey rhetoric as regards megacorps, I’m more curious why you consider exclusivity a scam and not being competitive, or think that dropping exclusivity agreements - which would likely put a large number of small devs right out of the game by forcing them to develop titles on hardware that they may be less familiar with or not have access to - in favor of forcing competition on a hardware level would be any better.

If nothing else, that’s liable to take the relatively stable console market, which draws a lot of folks due to a lower cost of entry, less technical acumen required, and only needing to upgrade/replace hardware every 5-10 years to stay current, and turn it into a microcosm of the PC market, where everyone’s constantly racing to have the “best” hardware, changing system specs will impact game performance (and, again, the ability of smaller/less familiar dev teams to create/participate due to the multitude of possibilities they’d have to develop for), and folks will likely be essentially forced into buying ever-more-expensive upgrades much more frequently. If you want to talk about things becoming anti-consumer, that sure seems like the definition to me.

Let me ask you this: When you go out to eat, how do you pick which restaurant? Willing to bet it’s due to that particular place having what you want. You can’t get a Whopper at Popeye’s, you can’t get Cajun chicken at Jack in the Box, you can’t get Jack’s Tacos at McDonalds. Shall we crusade that we be able to get those things at any restaurant? Is it anti-competitive when Arby’s drops the only-available-here venison sandwich? Now, to be fair, I don’t think McDonalds is paying anyone off to keep the Big Mac unique to them, but neither is every exclusive a paid-for deal. There’s plenty of reasons for exclusivity (dev ability, dev preference, market trends and hardware features/capability, among others.)

ASILENTENIGMA · July 18, 2023

2 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

I thought all companies were the same? Now you're telling me that Microsoft is actually worse because they're a mega corp that can overcome governments to this degree. Do you think Nintendo could do what Microsoft has been doing? Sony? We can go smaller. As I've told you, these companies are not the same. We get it, they're not pure hearted saints, but that does not mean they are the same as Microsoft. There are levels to things. Heck, even Phil Spencer with his anti-Google/Amazon comments said as such. That Microsoft could trust Sony/Nintendo in gaming, but Google/Amazon could not be.

36 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Actually, yeah, I do think so. The power of lobbying in the current state of affairs is scary. (Also, unthanks for reminding me of the possibility that this might motivate Google, Amazon and similar trillion-dollar companies to start making their own moves. shudders)

Everyone has had exclusives going back to Atari. That's just the reality of the video game business. I don't care at all about Sony and Bloodborne or Sony and Final Fantasy. Xbox paid for timed exclusivity of the GTA 4 DLC. Ace Combat 6 never came to PS despite that being a well-established and long running IP for both the PS1 and the PS2. The exclusives argument cancels itself out. I also don't care at all about this idea that it would be great if nobody had exclusives. That is 100% fantasy and not rooted in reality.

The above point from Rozalia is the core of this whole problem, in my opinion. It is also where I completely disagree with your point above Eagle. Sony and Nintendo, as much as they would dream about being able to, couldn't pull off this type of Activision deal. The following figures were from quick internet searches, so they could be incorrect. I saw one estimate that it took 5 years after the Switch was released for Nintendo to hit the 60 billion mark in revenue from the Switch. That's revenue, not profit. In one deal Microsoft is spending 9 billion more than Nintendo brought in with their current device over 5 years. I saw an estimate that had Playstation revenue at 23 billion in 2020, 25 billion in 2021, and 27 billion in 2022, 75 billion total. Again, revenue, not profit. It takes Sony 3 years to bring in 6 billion more in revenue than what Microsoft is spending on the Activision deal.

When Sony bought Bungie it was described as one of the largest in Sony's history at 3.7 billion. It was also announced that Bungie would stay independent and multiplatform. Microsoft spent twice as much for Zenimax as Sony did for Bungie. And what happened? Redfall PS5 cancelled. PS5 Indiana Jones not happening. PS5 Starfield not happening. Microsoft is spending 18.6 times as much for Activision than Sony did for Bungie. Sony buys a multiplatform studio and it stays that way. Microsoft buys multiplatform entities and the majority of the IP's get walled off. Sony buys studios. Microsoft is now acquiring entire publishers. Microsoft acquired 8 studios with Zenimax and 9 to 11 studios with Activision.

I saw one estimate that put Microsoft's market cap at just under 2.6 trillion, making it the 2nd most valuable company in the world. The regulators across the world just gave one of the largest mobile developers, one of the largest PC developers, and one of, if not the largest, annual releases in the console space to one of the richest companies in the world. This is why this deal shouldn't have been approved. This has the potential to be very detrimental and will not benefit the consumers. I certainly hope I'm wrong.

Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tencent, even Walmart shouldn't have been able to get this deal. Hell, even Sony as the console leader shouldn't have been able to get this deal. This is exactly how these companies become the seemingly unstoppable forces they are. The regulators that are put in place simply don't regulate as they should in my opinion.

So now Sony has to go out and answer. So now they have to buy EA, or Ubisoft, or Square, etc. Which will further limit consumer choice. So now because of the Zenimax and Activision deal we now are in the reality where entire publishers need to be the target of acquisition, not individual studios. Of course, if not Sony then Amazon or Tencent could buy up publishers. Again, this is why the regulators need to actually keep these companies in check, and why this deal shouldn't have been approved.

Yes, exclusives limit consumer choice. That's reality. Sony and Nintendo are just like every other company. They're not your friend and they just want your money. I'm not disagreeing with everything you say Eagle, nor anyone else that has made those statements. However, Rozalia's point, in my opinion, reigns over this whole discussion. Microsoft is not the same as Sony and Nintendo. They are an absolute massive entity with the huge potential to be a complete wrecking ball in any industry they see fit to flatten. In my opinion, in no way, shape or form does Sony and Nintendo exhibit the same monopolistic drive, intent, and desire like Microsoft does. Ultimately, that's why I feel this deal should not have been approved.

Not trying to convert anyone. Just my thoughts. Hope I kept it civil enough Eagle. I wasn't necessarily going after you even though I used your quote. Rational debate is always a good thing, even if there are disagreements.

Ashande · July 18, 2023

7 minutes ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

[…]

Yes, exclusives limit consumer choice. That's reality. Sony and Nintendo are just like every other company. They're not your friend and they just want your money. I'm not disagreeing with everything you say Eagle, nor anyone else that has made those statements. However, Rozalia's point, in my opinion, reigns over this whole discussion. Microsoft is not the same as Sony and Nintendo. They are an absolute massive entity with the huge potential to be a complete wrecking ball in any industry they see fit to flatten. In my opinion, in no way, shape or form does Sony and Nintendo exhibit the same monopolistic drive, intent, and desire like Microsoft does. Ultimately, that's why I feel this deal should not have been approved.

[..]

Agreed. Microsoft also has a 50-year history of sliding into a given space, using underhanded tactics to gain an advantage, then bullying their competitors out of that space, frequently scavenging the remnants for anything useful as they do so and then claiming it all as their own innovation. They’ve also shown they’re not above violating contracts and going against any strictures or regulations placed on them, just paying the fines with a laugh and a smile, because they get their way in the end.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Ashande

Rozalia1 · July 19, 2023

18 hours ago, Eagle said:

It would be a sidetrack if this thread was still in its first stages, but by this point, everything that had to be said against Microsoft was already said (which is very good). It's more of an addendum: don't fall into the trap of idolizing other corporations just because they're not the one that happens to be the target of attention due to being particularly bold and upfront about their objectives.

Actually, yeah, I do think so. The power of lobbying in the current state of affairs is scary. (Also, unthanks for reminding me of the possibility that this might motivate Google, Amazon and similar trillion-dollar companies to start making their own moves. shudders)

"Unfair" is not exactly the correct word, I'd say "unwise" is more like it. I find it great that Microsoft is getting attacked, but I think that care must be taken not to turn this into a cartoonish heroes vs. villains situation because ultimately it doesn't reflect the reality of things and just sets one up to be disappointed whenever the "heroes" turn out to be just as bad. There's no need to preface comments with it, just coming to the realization is already enough. As for why I care, it's because, again, I loathe corporations and I just want to try and make people more wary of them, even if only slightly. "But you can do nothing to stop them on any scale that actually matters," you might say, which is sadly true but then again why is anyone commenting on this thread in the first place by that logic?

Exclusivity deals aren't illegal because the people making the laws (they're not in a category above materiality, after all; they are made by a certain group of people with a certain objective in mind) don't have anything to gain with them being so (and, conversely, everything to gain with them not being so). Without exclusives, competition would increase because then other groups would be able to make their own platforms without the prohibitiveness of being locked out of a certain group of games and thus losing a major part of its appeal from the get-go as a result.

The true way of generating competition, if it was actually the goal (which it's not), would be to make features in your console that would draw people's attention to it and make it worthy of being acquired – not arbitrarily locking games away and forcing an user to start using a particular platform if they want any chance of getting their hands in them (to be fair, in Nintendo's case, that can thankfully be dealt with through emulation; unfortunately, technology's not quite there for the others yet).

(yes, I am skipping the war thing because it's a whole other can of worms and one that is irrelevant to the topic at hand; it would require a thread of its own, one which I'm not even sure could or should exist in this site)

What I hope (not expect, because well, what I unfortunately expect is the opposite) is merely that people recognize that megacorps aren't all that different from each other and none of them have the industry's best interests in mind; I decided to leave my initial comment not because people were not attacking Sony/Nintendo, it was because people were getting to the point of defending them in the process of attacking the other. And that I personally see as a worrying thing.

The prohibitiveness of acquiring the hardware to even be able to make platforms (and thus, do the process of investing in making them unique through features and not through locking certain games away from others, as I mentioned) is indeed a good point – it is another thing that would need to change.

I was addressing each point, but I've decided to not bother. @Ashande has explained to you why exclusives are competition. As their post states, apply your standard to other things and it obviously falls apart completely.

What I will say is that I asked you why you care so much about Microsoft being the lone company attacked and simply must keep repeating Sony/Nintendo bad at us. It escapes nobody that companies are varying levels of bad. Cool, Microsoft is much worse and worthy of notice. If Sony tomorrow coups America and has Nadella and Spencer executed you can rest easy that our attention will turn to Sony being bad, don't worry.

I counted four arguments you put forward that only benefit Microsoft in your post. The exclusives are bad argument, that services are true competition, hardware needs to go away for something else (cloud), and those who have exclusives should be ~~pirated~~ emulated (this is fine for Microsoft as they don't want to have exclusives and they intend to ultimately put even Windows in the cloud for everyone). This is why you've not looked good.

16 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

Bro, you're not supposed to post cringe on main.

I bet Microsoft employees stay up at night worried about what you think of their trillion dollar company.

Gust who is owned by Koei Tecmo? The company that needs to get rid of all pretense already and just rename themselves to Japanese EA?

Deadrising 3, Killer Instinct, Ryse (which despite everyone shitting on when it was an Xbox exclusive, got massive praise once it hit Steam) and Crimson Dragon. Then it got Titanfall 1 (easily the best shooter of the gen) and PvZ Garden Warfare during launch window.

Switch dropped Q1 with Zelda and didn't get Mario till Q4.

What did PS4 have? Killzone that me and five other people cared about? Bloodborne released a whole year after Titanfall 1 came out. It was so bad that it became a meme that it was the only game the console had.

MAIN! MAIN! MAIN! Fucking reading comprehension. I use specific phrasing for a reason.

Capcom wanted to do major changes to the game but were limited by the hardware. They had to release Super and an iteration of a game isn't as bad as a whole new entry because usually a new entry will change mechanics entirely and do cuts to the roster. This is especially important for fighting games as it can fragment the playerbase.

Also selling DLC characters isn't as lucrative as you think it is. Way more people will buy the base game than the amount of people that will buy any of the content that gets released for it afterwards. All the Street Fighter V content was just filler to keep their most die hard players engaged with the franchise until they could release the next entry.

As for MK they're a completely different beast. They're not tied to the FGC in the same way as other fighters and the majority of their playerbase is normies that just play the game for the campaign or to "ooh" and "ahh" at Fatalities. The two releases were also buffered by Injustice 2. In theory Capcom and Bamco could do a similar thing like SF, Darkstalkers and SF or Tekken, Soul Calibur and Tekken but I don't think that many people care about Darkstalkers and SC fell off hard in popularity thanks to the poor reception of SC5.

I'm continuing my narrative that all these companies suck. You want to harp on this one fighting game but that was a whole ass console. I also really like the Vita, it's actually Sony I'm hating on for dropping the ball so hard as they did with it. All the praise the Switch gets for bringing console quality games on the go should have gone to the Vita.

Nope, never said this.

Cringe is to pretend that Nintendo isn't excellent. Like them or not, they're the number 1 gaming company on that matter.

I referred to the fact that at least if you were doing this with some other company it wouldn't instantly be a joke as it is with Xbox. You deflect with some irrelevant comment about Microsoft not caring about what I think.

In the process of defending Microsoft you are seemingly prepared to attack anybody huh. Why?

For someone who has gotten quite excited saying I don't have reading comprehension, you cite at me a bunch of Xbox One launch titles after I specifically told you to not do so as they ain't recent. All very predictable behaviour because you've been avoiding recent Xbox for a reason. However, now that I've laid that out, your next move, as you won't admit you're wrong, would be to cite Hi-Fi Rush, Pentiment, so forth and talk them up. Embarrass yourself by trying that if you wish, but I would advise against it. Oh, and I'm going to let you in on a little secret. Zelda Breath of the Wild? Worth more on its own then all the games you mentioned. You could paint 1,000,000 stickmen portraits and they'd not have anywhere near the value of the Mona Lisa. Also, why are you randomly going into a conversation of the Xbox One having better launch titles than PlayStation/Switch?

Capcom wanted to do changes to Street Fighter 4 but were limited by the PS3 hardware... so they released Super Street Fighter 4 on... the PS3. They then released the Arcade Edition as both DLC and as a standalone version... on the PS3. They then did the same thing again for Ultra Street Fighter 4... on the PS3. Where were they ever limited by hardware? Mortal Kombat is also an exception because reasons, which is convenient. Anyway, with all of this you once again fail to answer where, even by your own specifications, we don't have a new Killer Instinct game already. Do answer that this time please.

We certainly could never figure out that other companies suck if we didn't have you to tell us. We'd all believe that only Microsoft does. As with Eagle, why do you care so much to be posting like this? You've been defending Microsoft hard and seemingly will attack anyone else brought up to do it. Again, why? Trolling I suppose is the most innocent explanation.

Oh dear, you got me on using the wrong language. 'You are putting forward that Microsoft is better'. Fixed.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Rozalia1

Eagle · July 19, 2023

3 hours ago, Ashande said:

Setting aside the Space Monkey rhetoric in regards to megacorps, I’m more curious as to why you consider exclusivity a scam and not being competitive, or think that dropping exclusivity agreements – which would likely put a large number of small devs right out of the game by forcing them to develop titles on hardware that they may be less familiar with or not have access to – in favor of forcing competition on a hardware level would be any better.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with what "Space Monkey rhetoric" is and I wasn't able to find it on a Google search either, so it'd be appreciated if you could elaborate on what it is. Anyways, to the actual point: yes, there is a point to be made that certain devs may have more familiarity with certain platforms, but ideally (it is not happening as things stand for obvious reasons) there should be support from the platform-holders to these devs so they can work on X platform without the exclusivity strings attached.

3 hours ago, Ashande said:

Let me ask you this: when you go out to eat, how do you pick which restaurant? Willing to bet it’s due to that particular place having what you want. You can’t get a Whopper at Popeye’s, you can’t get Cajun chicken at Jack in the Box, you can’t get Jack’s Tacos at McDonalds. Shall we crusade that we be able to get those things at any restaurant? Is it anti-competitive when Arby’s drops the only-available-here venison sandwich? Now, to be fair, I don’t think McDonalds is paying anyone off to keep the Big Mac unique to them, but neither is every exclusive a paid-for deal. There’s plenty of reasons for exclusivity (dev ability, dev preference, market trends and hardware features/capability, among others).

I don't think the analogy works very well here solely for the factor that the option for me to look up the recipe for X food I happen to want online and do it myself at home is perfectly available, which obviously isn't feasible for a console (and because, if I'm going out, I'm likely going to an actual restaurant rather than a fast-food service, but that's a personal thing so I think it's not really a fitting counterpoint).

3 hours ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

Everyone has had exclusives going back to Atari. That's just the reality of the videogame business.

Well, yeah. Doesn't mean it's a good reality, or that it shouldn't change.

3 hours ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

The above point from Rozalia is the core of this whole problem, in my opinion. It is also where I completely disagree with your point above Eagle. Sony and Nintendo, as much as they would dream about being able to, couldn't pull off this type of Activision deal. The following figures were from quick internet searches, so they could be incorrect. I saw one estimate that it took 5 years after the Switch was released for Nintendo to hit the 60 billion mark in revenue from the Switch. That's revenue, not profit. In one deal Microsoft is spending 9 billion more than Nintendo brought in with their current device over 5 years. I saw an estimate that had Playstation revenue at 23 billion in 2020, 25 billion in 2021, and 27 billion in 2022, 75 billion total. Again, revenue, not profit. It takes Sony 3 years to bring in 6 billion more in revenue than what Microsoft is spending on the Activision deal.

OK, this is one where I feel I should have clarified things a bit more, so pardon me for that: I specifically meant that I believe they could overcome government regulations. Obviously, they don't have the sheer funding necessary to make purchases at such costs that Microsoft do, but they do have enough funding to make smaller-scale purchases that would still essentially achieve the same goal, especially because they have a large market presence anyway (for instance, the examples you've mentioned – EA, Ubisoft, Square Enix, etc.), and I believe that if challenged on such purchases by a regulator they would most likely win.

Ultimately, we mostly just agree that the regulators should have never approved the purchase because it is gonna be the start of the downward spiral, yeah. (Unfortunately, money is very talkative.)

3 hours ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

In my opinion, in no way, shape or form does Sony and Nintendo exhibit the same monopolistic drive, intent, and desire like Microsoft does.

My point is mostly that them not exhibiting that drive does not mean they do not possess that drive – they're just not in the conditions to exhibit that drive, unlike Microsoft. In my view, all megacorps have monopolistic intent by nature because it's the inevitable end goal of the entire system in which they thrive.

3 hours ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

Not trying to convert anyone. Just my thoughts. Hope I kept it civil enough Eagle. I wasn't necessarily going after you even though I used your quote. Rational debate is always a good thing, even if there are disagreements.

Oh no, no worries. I don't mind being disagreed with, to clarify, just don't appreciate being treated condescendingly in an unprovoked manner and then being somehow pointed as "fueling flame wars" – which you didn't do at any point.

12 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

[...] those who have exclusives should be ~~pirated~~ emulated (this is fine for Microsoft as they don't want to have exclusives and they intend to ultimately put even Windows in the cloud for everyone).

It's less that they should be emulated and more that it is the only viable option for many. Now, of course, I won't get into the matter of the morality of emulation here because that's also a separate discussion, although I figure that at this point it's not hard to figure out my stance on it.

Ashande · July 19, 2023

13 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Sorry, I'm not familiar with what "Space Monkey rhetoric" is and I wasn't able to find it on a Google search either, so it'd be appreciated if you could elaborate on what it is. Anyways, to the actual point: yes, there is a point to be made that certain devs may have more familiarity with certain platforms, but ideally (it is not happening as things stand for obvious reasons) there should be support from the platform-holders to these devs so they can work on X platform without the exclusivity strings attached.

I don't think the analogy works very well here solely for the factor that the option for me to look up the recipe for X food I happen to want online and do it myself at home is perfectly available, which obviously isn't feasible for a console (and because, if I'm going out, I'm likely going to an actual restaurant rather than a fast-food service, but that's a personal thing so I think it's not really a fitting counterpoint).

[…]

It's less that they should be emulated and more that it is the only viable option for many. Now, of course, I won't get into the matter of the morality of emulation here because that's also a separate discussion, although I figure that at this point it's not hard to figure out my stance on it.

Space Monkeys were Tyler Durden’s minions in Fight Club, very committed - to the death, in the case of Robert Paulson - to the idea of destroying capitalist and corporate power.

Your apparent perfect world, where console manufacturers provide all the tech, tools and training for devs to work on their platform while apparently getting nothing out of it doesn’t seem sustainable… and when just such a scenario happened, it didn’t really end well for anyone involved. Look into the development history of L.A. Noire and the circus that followed for an example. It also does nothing to address the issues I presented that going to a hardware-centric competitive model would create.

The food analogy works perfectly fine, since you could also go out, obtain software for game creation (ranging from drag-and-drop software like RPG Maker to more robust tools like ClickTeam Fusion all the way to learning C or a handful of other dedicated programming langauges) and make your own software, either for your amusement or for others. Further, whether you’re going for fast food or a sit-down experience, still willing to bet you pick the restaurant because of a given menu item that you can’t get elsewhere, and even if you’re going to the grocery store for some home cooking, you probably make that selection based on the store’s inventory and brand availability as well.

So far as emulation and “viable options,” well. The viable option is simple: if you can’t obtain and play the game legally, then don’t play it. You are not entitled to a game merely because it exists. Same goes for any form of media. I suspect you and I both know that the majority of emulation aficionados are not buying a copy of Metroid Dread or what-have-you before they download the ROM and get busy. Perhaps that’s not a bother to you, or you think of it in a Robin Hood fashion or striking a blow against the evil megacorps by not participating in their system. I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s a real short trip from “emulation’s great and should be encouraged” to Pirate’s Bay.

ASILENTENIGMA · July 19, 2023

22 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Well, yeah. Doesn't mean it's a good reality, or that it shouldn't change.

Very true. However, with multi trillion dollar companies and multi-billion dollar companies involved it won't change, in any industry. Unfortunately. That's why, in my opinion, the measuring of the exclusives of system A and system B is just silly. They all do it. To me, it was absolutely laughable when the Microsoft CEO said, in effect, they really didn't want exclusives but had to because of Sony. As if exclusives weren't a thing for the past 40 to 50 years in this business, long before Sony. It was like listening to a politician tell lies with a straight face. You don't want exclusives, but have to have them, so you buy two publishers, which forces your competitor to buy a publisher, which forces you to buy another publisher, etc. It's a never ending cycle. Except now Microsoft has upgraded from buying studios to buying entire publishers. That's one reason why, I'm my opinion, the deal should have been blocked. Too much power and control being handed to Microsoft, which is the exact type of company you shouldn't be making things easier for them to get power and control.

43 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Obviously, they don't have the sheer funding necessary to make purchases at such costs that Microsoft do

Also true. That's what makes Microsoft so potentially dangerous in my opinion. When they can spend over 18 times the amount that Sony spent in one of their largest acquisitions, that should be a warning sign to regulators. That should tell regulators that this company is already a giant to begin with, considering the amount of capital they have, and should really think about what a company like that would do to an industry if you approve a deal. Unfortunately, the regulators didn't do that with Activision, and they didn't do that with Zenimax.

49 minutes ago, Eagle said:

My point is mostly that them not exhibiting that drive does not mean they do not possess that drive – they're just not in the conditions to exhibit that drive, unlike Microsoft. In my view, all megacorps have monopolistic intent by nature because it's the inevitable end goal of the entire system in which they thrive.

True. Of course, Sony and Nintendo have that drive, you're right. They are also not big enough to really take that drive from ambition and turn it into reality. Unfortunately, Microsoft can. Again, that's why I feel the deal should have been blocked. People always wonder how big companies get so big and get the power and influence that they have. It's not some miracle of nature. It's because the regulators fail to regulate, and these companies grow bigger and bigger and bigger. I'm a huge fan of the Alien movies. Apple, Tencent, Google, etc, they remind me of Weyland-Yutani, lol.

55 minutes ago, Eagle said:

Oh no, no worries. I don't mind being disagreed with, to clarify, just don't appreciate being treated condescendingly in an unprovoked manner and then being somehow pointed as "fueling flame wars" – which you didn't do at any point.

Very happy to read this. Like I said, didn't want you to think I was specifically coming after you. Sounds like we maybe agree on some points, disagree on others. No problem with that at all. I see from your player card you have 15 plats. Nicely done! Hope you have good times getting more plats in the future.

ARobinGaming · July 19, 2023

Also saw this and I don't know how accurate it is but interesting regardless https://twitter.com/IdleSloth84_/status/1681651162804617216?s=20

Edited July 19, 2023 by ARobinGaming

Rozalia1 · July 19, 2023

1 hour ago, ARobinGaming said:

Also saw this and I don't know how accurate it is but interesting regardless https://twitter.com/IdleSloth84_/status/1681651162804617216?s=20

The word is that three more months have been given, with the fee increasing by 500 million every month. Activision will also get to pay their shareholders 0.99 more and apparently every month that will rise too (this is not confirmed, but likely). Technically the amount Microsoft is buying Activision for hasn't actually increased because the increases will come out of the money that Activision has on hand, which normally would all go to Microsoft, but with this will have some of it go towards paying for the increase.

All in all, pretty good for Microsoft. The only thing that could stop them at this point, and it would be a big longshot, would be the CAT judge not getting his 'satisfaction' from the CMA in regards to how what Microsoft is now putting forward is materially different than the previous stuff that the CMA rejected, several times at that to the point that he condemns them (and Microsoft, though less so) for making a mockery of the process. If that were to happen then the CMA would be forced to fight Microsoft in court at the CAT appeal, but considering how on side the CMA's team now clearly is with Microsoft, I would think the CAT judge would have to do something about the current CMA team and get them changed to someone else. As I said, big longshot and would be heavily embarrassing to the CMA, and I mean embarrassing to the point there would be serious consequences. The CMA's boss would be losing their job at minimum.

So yeah, Microsoft is going to buy Activision unless a freak event occurs. Like many who have talked on the issue here already, not exactly fussed to be losing Activision. If Microsoft cripples CoD then good, gaming will be better without it anyway. I've talked to CoD's fans before and many seem to play it more as some manner of addiction they can't drop even though they know they should. Perhaps good guy Microsoft will help them kick the addiction. If CoD were to fall apart then wow, the level of damage that'd cause in Activision's workforce would be quite something. King meanwhile has yet to find something to succeed Candy Crush. Blizzard has the embers of WoW and an Overwatch/Diablo that is having issues. Potentially when you add in the typical mismanagement that we see at Xbox, combined with these successful properties that Activision holds being somewhat vulnerable... it could well be a situation where Microsoft buys Activision for 69 billion, but go forward X years and Activision is worth a 1/10th of that. Would be quite the karma, very deserved karma.

12 hours ago, Eagle said:

It's less that they should be emulated and more that it is the only viable option for many. Now, of course, I won't get into the matter of the morality of emulation here because that's also a separate discussion, although I figure that at this point it's not hard to figure out my stance on it.

Such talk is straight up bannable in many places. No one, absolutely no one is morally correct for pirating Nintendo's games because they don't put them on PC, because they put value on their games so don't discount them, because they're poor, or whatever else. People aren't entitled to Nintendo's or anyone else's games.

We are fortunate that in the relevant markets the people are not accustomed to such piracy and don't have the sort of views that you are professing. As they don't it means that a great many companies can be supported and we get the quality of games that we do. If piracy became widespread it would destroy company after company and then the ones that remained would have to exist around piracy. Both PlayStation and Nintendo would get devastated by such a thing... Microsoft (Xbox branding would likely disappear, but they'd continue in gaming) of course would not, as they'll just move everything to the Cloud (as they want to down the line). So as I've told you, just another in a long list of things you've said that only helps Microsoft.

Funny how you take all these anti-corporation stances on things, but said stances only ever actually help the bigger companies in crushing smaller ones. It is almost like there are nuances to things.

parkerdip · July 19, 2023

2 hours ago, ARobinGaming said:

Also saw this and I don't know how accurate it is but interesting regardless https://twitter.com/IdleSloth84_/status/1681651162804617216?s=20

More games to More players everywhere... such lies.

It just means Call of Duty.

He'll just take all the other IPs away once its done... hypocritical

Same thing as Bethesda

Its more players everywhere unless you have a Playstation

Edited July 19, 2023 by parkerdip

Eagle · July 20, 2023

19 hours ago, Ashande said:

Your apparent perfect world, where console manufacturers provide all the tech, tools and training for devs to work on their platform while apparently getting nothing out of it doesn’t seem sustainable… and when just such a scenario happened, it didn’t really end well for anyone involved. Look into the development history of L.A. Noire and the circus that followed for an example. It also does nothing to address the issues I presented that going to a hardware-centric competitive model would create.

L.A. Noire's issue was that it had someone like Brandon McNamara in charge of the whole project, subjecting workers to abuse and intense crunch (as well as the ambitiousness of the project for a studio with the resources that they had, unfortunately) – it doesn't mean that the ones who had sent support to Team Bondi were wrong about doing so.

19 hours ago, Ashande said:

The food analogy works perfectly fine, since you could also go out, obtain software for game creation (ranging from drag-and-drop software like RPG Maker to more robust tools like ClickTeam Fusion all the way to learning C or a handful of other dedicated programming languages) and make your own software, either for your amusement or for others. Further, whether you’re going for fast food or a sit-down experience, still willing to bet you pick the restaurant because of a given menu item that you can’t get elsewhere, and even if you’re going to the grocery store for some home cooking, you probably make that selection based on the store’s inventory and brand availability as well.

The difference is that I wouldn't be able to replicate a game merely through learning game development, no matter how much skill or time I put into the project – the same does not go for food, which also takes significantly less effort in comparison. To put it into perspective: if I want a Big Mac, I can just purchase all of the ingredients, find a recipe online (mostly for the sauce than anything, given the rest is literally just preparing toppings and putting them between two buns) and replicate it in a few hours' time at most (and heck, most likely even do it better given how Maccas burgers usually show up); if I want to play Hi-Fi Rush, it doesn't matter if I'm a game dev prodigy, I am most definitely not being able to fully replicate it on my own. And that is a much more smaller-scale game than, say, Tears of the Kingdom or Bloodborne or most of the other games that could be possibly used as examples.

Also, no, I don't pick restaurants based on given menu items – I usually pick them based on the quality of the food and the establishment in general. In fact, typing that, I realize that would actually unintentionally further add substance to my point of view, although I still don't think the analogy fits either way and it again gets into personal behavior so I won't use that as an argument. (And for the grocery store, which is an even further detachment but alas, I go for convenience e.g. proximity to my house and/or price.)

20 hours ago, Ashande said:

So far as emulation and “viable options,” well. The viable option is simple: if you can’t obtain and play the game legally, then don’t play it. You are not entitled to a game merely because it exists. Same goes for any form of media. I suspect you and I both know that the majority of emulation aficionados are not buying a copy of Metroid Dread or what-have-you before they download the ROM and get busy. Perhaps that’s not a bother to you, or you think of it in a Robin Hood fashion or striking a blow against the evil megacorps by not participating in their system. I don’t know. What I do know is that it’s a real short trip from “emulation’s great and should be encouraged” to Pirate Bay.

Well, I philosophically disagree with that so I won't argue this point much because it'd just be a discussion of ideals – which, ironically, is not ideal. But let's just say that piracy extends to much further than media; take Sci-Hub, for example. I'd very much take the unviable help that it has given to advancing science rather than the well-being of the publishers that have the resources to lock information behind paywalls.

(Plus, funnily enough, there are studies which affirm that it can even help companies, such as this one: https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/research-finds-digital-piracy-can-increase-profits-for-companies-19rjc. Yes, I went to the point of even providing a source to arguments against myself. I'm weird like that.)

19 hours ago, ASILENTENIGMA said:

Very happy to read this. Like I said, didn't want you to think I was specifically coming after you. Sounds like we maybe agree on some points, disagree on others. No problem with that at all. I see from your player card you have 15 plats. Nicely done! Hope you have good times getting more plats in the future.

Thanks! To be honest, from what we've discussed, I have the feeling we actually agree about the whole thing – I guess I'm just more idealistic in which I believe the fix to such problems is still reachable, which is neither necessarily bad or good.

8 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

We are fortunate that, in the relevant markets, the people are not accustomed to such piracy and don't have the sort of views that you are professing. As they don't, it means that a great many companies can be supported and we get the quality of games that we do. If piracy became widespread, it would destroy company after company and then the ones that remained would have to exist around piracy. Both PlayStation and Nintendo would get devastated by such a thing, Microsoft (Xbox branding would likely disappear, but they'd continue in gaming) of course would not, as they'll just move everything to the cloud (as they want to, down the line). So as I've told you, just another in a long list of things you've said that only helps Microsoft.

I mean, I'm not condoning it – if one has the resources available to make such purchases, then by all means that person should purchase the products instead of resorting to alternatives. I'm just saying that there's a reason why people take the alternatives and, between them and the megacorps, I'm supporting the former any day of the week. A moral dilemma, for sure, and I also understand the reason as to why many don't approve of such an act in principle, but I am absolutely not apologetic for my view in such a conflict. (Yes, even if it'd theoretically get me banned. Which it won't because *cough cough* the guy with the thread which had literal animated Crystal Palace if you catch my drift and all the other vile discourse in there didn't get banned he just left if that's the kind of stuff one could get away with surely a more nuanced view on piracy can go by just fine it's not criticism of the protocols by the way just a constatation I'm immensely happy with what was already done and ultimately just hope it doesn't return and yes I know a lot of my latest posts have been about the topic but I can't not still feel joy to actually be able to have a discussion such as this one again without getting sidetracked by random tomfoolery *cough cough* whew sorry got a fit of coughing there.)

Also, it is very much widespread behavior (even in countries where the average person has more acquisitional power) and their existence currently isn't threatened in the slightest, as much that they'd like people to think otherwise with the aggressive pushback.. so yeah. (Heck, the study I linked could even be referred to once again.)

Z1MZUM · July 21, 2023

On 7/16/2023 at 9:39 PM, majob said:

It honestly amazes me how many people still miss the point that's stressed here. No one gives a fuck about ABK, its about MS being given precedent to consolidate the industry with no regulatory pushback and this purchase sets the precedent. No one fucking cares about ABK but they do carry about MS consolidating to the point where they're the only ones in the industry

But that is all I'm interested in, I think I said as much, Actually I'm %100 sure that is what I said. I did message from an iphone in the middle of the Sea of Japan but still I clearly said I didn't care about anything else.

Edited July 21, 2023 by Z1MZUM

ZombiJoel_Tlou3 · July 21, 2023

On 2023. 07. 18. at 10:55 PM, Eagle said:

It would be a sidetrack if this thread was still in its first stages, but by this point, everything that had to be said against Microsoft was already said (which is very good). It's more of an addendum: don't fall into the trap of idolizing other corporations just because they're not the one that happens to be the target of attention due to being particularly bold and upfront about their objectives.

Actually, yeah, I do think so. The power of lobbying in the current state of affairs is scary. (Also, unthanks for reminding me of the possibility that this might motivate Google, Amazon and similar trillion-dollar companies to start making their own moves. shudders)

"Unfair" is not exactly the correct word, I'd say "unwise" is more like it. I find it great that Microsoft is getting attacked, but I think that care must be taken not to turn this into a cartoonish heroes vs. villains situation because ultimately it doesn't reflect the reality of things and just sets one up to be disappointed whenever the "heroes" turn out to be just as bad. There's no need to preface comments with it, just coming to the realization is already enough.

As for why I care, it's because, again, I loathe corporations and I just want to try and make people more wary of them, even if only slightly. "But you can do nothing to stop them on any scale that actually matters," you might say, which is sadly true but then again why is anyone commenting on this thread in the first place by that logic?

Exclusivity deals aren't illegal because the people making the laws (they're not in a category above materiality, after all; they are made by a certain group of people with a certain objective in mind) don't have anything to gain with them being so (and, conversely, everything to gain with them not being so). Without exclusives, competition would increase because then other groups would be able to make their own platforms without the prohibitiveness of being locked out of a certain group of games and thus losing a major part of its appeal from the get-go as a result.

The true way of generating competition, if it was actually the goal (which it's not), would be to make features in your console that would draw people's attention to it and make it worthy of being acquired – not arbitrarily locking games away and forcing an user to start using a particular platform if they want any chance of getting their hands in them (to be fair, in Nintendo's case, that can thankfully be dealt with through emulation; unfortunately, technology's not quite there for the others yet).

(yes, I am skipping the war thing because it's a whole other can of worms and one that is irrelevant to the topic at hand; it would require a thread of its own, one which I'm not even sure could or should exist in this site)

What I hope (not expect, because well, what I unfortunately expect is the opposite) is merely that people recognize that megacorps aren't all that different from each other and none of them have the industry's best interests in mind; I decided to leave my initial comment not because people were not attacking Sony/Nintendo, it was because people were getting to the point of defending them in the process of attacking the other. And that I personally see as a worrying thing.

The prohibitiveness of acquiring the hardware to even be able to make platforms (and thus, do the process of investing in making them unique through features and not through locking certain games away from others, as I mentioned) is indeed a good point – it is another thing that would need to change.

yeah fuck exclusives they are so anti competitive, lets just have all the games available to everyone. Let's just have 1 system with 1 thing and instead of billions of games from different devs, there should be only 1 dev that makes only 1 type of games and there will be lots of boring in the future aaarrrghghhhh

JPtheNeurotic · July 21, 2023

Every time I come back to this thread I’m even more lost than I was before lol

Rozalia1 · July 21, 2023

The CAT judge has allowed the CMA and Microsoft to continue forward. How the CMA was able to provide a witness to tell the CAT that a plan Microsoft has which is not yet made can do the job? Who knows. Pretty sure the CAT is allowing it forward simply to avoid embarrassment that would occur if they denied it.

The expected course of proceedings is the CMA has completely capitulated due to political pressure and will allow the deal through with some pathetic condition attached. Essentially it'll be some "divesting", perhaps even in an infamous 10 year deal, that will give someone else rights over Activison/CoD on the cloud. Such a thing would do zero damage to Microsoft and ultimately only hurt UK gamers, but hey, they got something.

Of course... another possible thing is the CMA just honestly wants to really find a solution and still holds strong to what they've said before. The showing in court goes against this granted, but all that talk of them hashing out a deal, being ready to accept basically anything, so forth... all comes from leaks by Microsoft. As we've seen many times, Microsoft leaks stuff all the time that are simply lies to I suppose pressure the other party to do as the lies state. So it is possible that the CMA asks Microsoft to divest CoD still, Microsoft refuses, and then we're back to the CAT appeal going forward. If it were to go like that... ummm, the CMA I think would become quite feared. If that happens then it means they basically lured Microsoft in by pretending to surrender, made Microsoft get an extension which means a bigger fee to be paid on failure of the deal, and overall wasted even more of Microsoft's time which slows down any other buyouts they've been planning to go for. Additionally such a thing would be useful in court with the CAT as the CMA would be able to sell themselves as being completely open to working with Microsoft on the deal, but Microsoft kept trying to dictate terms and wouldn't accept even the lightest of concessions. This all is nothing to hope for, but it'll be a nice surprise if it did happen.

On 20/07/2023 at 2:07 AM, Eagle said:

I mean, I'm not condoning it – if one has the resources available to make such purchases, then by all means that person should purchase the products instead of resorting to alternatives. I'm just saying that there's a reason why people take the alternatives and, between them and the megacorps, I'm supporting the former any day of the week. A moral dilemma, for sure, and I also understand the reason as to why many don't approve of such an act in principle, but I am absolutely not apologetic for my view in such a conflict. (Yes, even if it'd theoretically get me banned. Which it won't because *cough cough* the guy with the thread which had literal animated Crystal Palace if you catch my drift and all the other vile discourse in there didn't get banned he just left if that's the kind of stuff one could get away with surely a more nuanced view on piracy can go by just fine it's not criticism of the protocols by the way just a constatation I'm immensely happy with what was already done and ultimately just hope it doesn't return and yes I know a lot of my latest posts have been about the topic but I can't not still feel joy to actually be able to have a discussion such as this one again without getting sidetracked by random tomfoolery *cough cough* whew sorry got a fit of coughing there.)

Also, it is very much widespread behavior (even in countries where the average person has more acquisitional power) and their existence currently isn't threatened in the slightest, as much that they'd like people to think otherwise with the aggressive pushback.. so yeah. (Heck, the study I linked could even be referred to once again.)

Nah. It is hip I know to be all 'screw the man' and all that, but piracy if it grows large enough hurts everybody. It is like drug legalisation. It works if only a small section of society responsibly uses it. It completely falls apart if a massive amount of your population abuses it. Look at Yemen, which to be fair is in a horrid state due to the war foisted on them, where large amounts of people waste their lives away off their head on Khat. Where the food and water supplies of the nation are wrecked as so much gets diverted towards the drug. Then you have the fact that once the genie is out of the bottle it is hard to put back in.

It is not widespread behaviour in the places relevant to all this. It is widespread in Russia, China, South America, and so forth. You'll notice those places don't exactly get much attention in traditional gaming, for that reason. Microtransaction laden games have had some success in such places though yes, which is what everyone will have to move to at minimum if piracy becomes widespread in the places that actually pay for games.

Anyway, there is no value in us continuing. As I have told you before. We are well aware that other companies aren't all angels. The relevant company however is Microsoft. If Sony, Shell, Honda, WWE, or whoever else also does bad stuff is irrelevant. Don't worry, Microsoft will survive getting singled out on here and they don't need you to defend them (what you've been doing the whole time even if you'll not admit it). So either focus on Microsoft or please stop trying to side track people with irrelevant discourse.

12 hours ago, JPtheNeurotic said:

Every time I come back to this thread I’m even more lost than I was before lol

What occurs when Microsoft supporting people try and shut people up from attacking the poor little trillion dollar company because Sony/Nintendo too. All companies are the same and blah blah blah. As I've stated, seen this stuff out of Microsoft agents posing as "neutrals" often and it is just so tiresome.

It has now been addressed enough and any future such efforts can be dismissed quickly.

majob · July 22, 2023

We should remember that the CMA's case isn't centered around the console market but the cloud market so whatever concession they would want would center around Microsoft's advantage with Cloud, not consoles

Eagle · July 23, 2023

23 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

I know it is hip to be all 'screw the man' and all that [...]

My whole point is that it's not "screw the man". Believe me, I wish it was as easy as having one person or group of people being the ones responsible for the current problems not only in the gaming industry but in the world at large, but alas it isn't; it's a systemic issue, and multiple parties take advantage of such a system – some openly, some more covertly. Plus, it's "hip" for a reason (after all, popularity is also not on a category above materiality), namely that more and more folks start to realize with each passing day that their only prospect in such a system is to lose. In fact, it's far from being a new thing: the only thing that changed between now and millenia ago, for instance, is the specific system whose contradictions slowly start to unravel. If not for people who were all "screw the system", it's likely that a vast part of the world would still be in feudalism or worse.

23 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

Piracy, if it grows large enough, hurts everybody. It is like drug legalization. It works if only a small section of society responsibly uses it. It completely falls apart if a massive amount of your population abuses it. Look at Yemen, which to be fair is in a horrid state due to the war foisted on them, where large amounts of people waste their lives away off their head on Khat. Where the food and water supplies of the nation are wrecked as so much gets diverted towards the drug. Then you have the fact that once the genie is out of the bottle, it is hard to put back in.

...

I would usually say, just as I did for the topic of the Russia-Ukraine war when it popped up, that the subject of drug legalization is yet again an ill-advised and ill-fitting analogy that would need a separate thread for discussion, one which I don't even know could or should exist in this site, because of the amount of nuance it requires: what drug(s) are you proposing on legalizing, how should that legalization happen, how is the current illegalization being enforced by authorities, etc. It is especially weird to bring up if any possible sidetracks to the ABK acquisition are supposedly to be avoided as much as possible, as I will get to later on this text, but alas.

But then I read the example and... really? You recognize that the problem in the country is the civil war (with the involvement of Freedom Exporter™, as always ?), yet you blame the population for the decline of quality of life because they use drugs? That's, at the bare minimum, showing that there's a lack of understanding of why people opt to use drugs (spoilers: no, it's not just because they're good-for-nothing junkies or something like that), and, at worst, a whole other level of victim-blaming.

23 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

It is not widespread behavior in the places relevant to all this. It is widespread in Russia, China, South America, and so forth. You'll notice those places don't exactly get much attention in traditional gaming, for that reason. Microtransaction-laden games have had some success in such places, though, yes, which is what everyone will have to move to at minimum if piracy becomes widespread in the places that actually pay for games.

...

No offense, but these two quotes in a row made me quickly go from "alright, we clearly disagree on the topic and I don't like being painted as a Microsoft defender (as I will get to later, as well) but still, they seem like a cool and knowledgeable person" to "wooooow, that's low." First off, I went to the extra mile to go and get statistics and, as I suspected, that's plain and simply wrong – you can see in this (anti-piracy, even, if that's a concern) source that the US is by far the one country that most consumes pirated media; before it's brought up, yup, I'm aware it's not specifically about games (these don't have solid statistics, as far as I've researched) but it already serves to dispel the myth that it is not widespread behavior in the global north.

And let me tell you why us South Americans don't get much attention in traditional gaming: it's because we've always been global minnows (thank centuries of colonization followed by a century of Freedom Exporter intervention for that). So why care for us, especially when the average person doesn't have the acquisitional power that the Europeans, United-statians and Japanese do? Fortunately, things are slowly changing (we even get Brazilian Portuguese instead of Portugal Portuguese as the standard for dubs now ) but it's still not all that easy even in Brazil, which is the most well-off of them all, let alone in our fellow countries. Same goes for Russia, China, India and all other similar examples.

On 21/07/2023 at 4:58 PM, Rozalia1 said:

Anyway, there is no value in us continuing. As I have told you before, we are well aware that other companies aren't all angels. The relevant company however is Microsoft. If Sony, Shell, Honda, WWE, or whoever else also does bad stuff is irrelevant. Don't worry, Microsoft will survive getting singled out on here and they don't need you to defend them (what you've been doing the whole time even if you'll not admit it). So either focus on Microsoft or please stop trying to sidetrack people with irrelevant discourse.

Tell you what, as much as these last two quotes irk me on a personal level, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree and move on – with one condition. Either you prove me (and others) are the "Microsoft agents" you claim us to be (after all, the burden of proof lies on the accuser), and to that I wish you good luck, or stop such accusations. No need for even a pardon or anything, I just really don't appreciate being called something which I'm not; after so many attempts at showing that my intents are genuine, nonetheless, which is why I can only assume now that there's no misunderstanding and instead, at the risk of potentially sounding rude, what's apparent pettiness because there's not a full allignment of opinions here.

Otherwise, I am also perfectly willing to just continue the conversation to try and further show my point of view – after all, it has much more to do with the topic at hand than drug legalization, the civil war in Yemen or the Russia-Ukraine war; all of which apparently are not sidetracks.

Rozalia1 · July 23, 2023

9 hours ago, Eagle said:

Tell you what, as much as these last two quotes irk me on a personal level, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree and move on – with one condition. Either you prove me (and others) are the "Microsoft agents" you claim us to be (after all, the burden of proof lies on the accuser), and to that I wish you good luck, or stop such accusations. No need for even a pardon or anything, I just really don't appreciate being called something which I'm not; after so many attempts at showing that my intents are genuine, nonetheless, which is why I can only assume now that there's no misunderstanding and instead, at the risk of potentially sounding rude, what's apparent pettiness because there's not a full allignment of opinions here.

You're listed as being in South America so I can understand feeling like I have irked you in some way by mentioning it, but at the same time I said nothing offensive. There are more factors at play obviously, but I'm not going to get into that here.

What I will address is your claim that I've called you a Microsoft agent and now need to prove such a thing.

On 21/07/2023 at 8:58 PM, Rozalia1 said:

What occurs when Microsoft supporting people try and shut people up from attacking the poor little trillion dollar company because Sony/Nintendo too. All companies are the same and blah blah blah. As I've stated, seen this stuff out of Microsoft agents posing as "neutrals" often and it is just so tiresome.

I referred to you as a Microsoft supportive person. I then stated that I've seen the arguments being stated out of Microsoft agents so often that they're just tiresome when I see them. That is not me calling you a Microsoft agent, otherwise I'd have done so straight up.

Of course proving such a thing even if completely obvious is very difficult. Few shills out there have been found in court and confirmed as shills on the payroll like Florian Mueller. Shills who get flown out to events by Microsoft, get dinners paid, and get gifted loads of stuff (and that is what we know of) can very easily then state that it had nothing to do with their put forward opinions. Plainly obvious it has, but no smoking gun from the person/Microsoft saying as such doesn't exist so 'can't prove it'. Many shills are also very low level and can pass themselves off as just fans. Of course sometimes things come out that show a company made heavy use of such things, as it has with Microsoft, but it'll just get "memory holed". Plus, we also get that classic that you've been making heavy use out of, the 'everyone does it' which only exists to protects the worst of abusers. Of course some people are honest in believing these things, or are simply taken in by the agents arguments.

What I will say is this. If you are who you say you are, and being an anti-corporation 'all of them are bad' is hardly a rare viewpoint. Then why do you keep persisting in all of this? We've told you we know that companies all are bad to some degree. We're plainly aware of this. Why do you keep pushing what only serves to protect Microsoft, the clear worst in all of this? Can we move on already?

Eagle · July 23, 2023

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

What I will say is this: if you are who you say you are, and being an anti-corporation 'all of them are bad' is hardly a rare viewpoint, then why do you keep persisting in all of this? We've told you we know that companies are all bad to some degree. We're plainly aware of this. Why do you keep pushing what only serves to protect Microsoft, the clear worst in all of this? Can we move on already?

Unfortunately, it is a rarer point of view than desired, as much as the Internet may make it seem otherwise at times. Ahem. The reason why I kept insisting, initially, was to try and make a point, but now that it's been made I'm mostly just trying to erase all doubt about my genuineness if such doubt does indeed exist.

(Also, if it's supposedly clear that I am a "supportive person" (which is also not the case) and not an "agent", why is there any doubt in me "being who I say I am"? But alas.)

Peaches · July 24, 2023

I don't think this will be a huge deal tbh. They are going to keep the big money games like Call of Duty multiplat. Maybe they can actually fix Overwatch 2 before it fully dies. It would also be cool if they get WoW on Gamepass and push for an Xbox version. The only big game I could see them making exclusive is Diablo. But Diablo 5 would be at least another 6 or so years out, and I'll be upset about that when we get there.

Honestly, I see Microsoft playing nice with Sony here. They've been much more focused on their Gamepass and PC stuff lately. Like they don't seem worried if they sell more consoles than PS now, as long as they make money off the Gamepass subscriptions. Which is smart.

AJ_-_808 · July 24, 2023

1 hour ago, PeachesPK said:

Honestly, I see Microsoft playing nice with Sony here. They've been much more focused on their Gamepass and PC stuff lately. Like they don't seem worried if they sell more consoles than PS now, as long as they make money off the Gamepass subscriptions. Which is smart.

Are you purposely ignoring the MS internal emails that were outed in court that basically spelled out their plans to outspend Sony out of the market? MS got caught with its pants down, but make no mistake, it's highly likely that's still their plan, even if they have to play nice for 10years with CoD

Microsoft is buying Activision Blizzard for $68.7 billion [FTC sues to stop - CMA issues updated preliminary findings]

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

SnowxSakura

dieselmanchild

StingX2

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members