Microsoft Games Are Going Third Party (Hi-Fi Rush/Pentiment/Sea of Thieves/Grounded release dates confirmed)

[The Alchemist]

On 2/23/2024 at 2:44 PM, iriihutoR84 said:

One alternative to buying a new, expensive Series X is to scour the market for a good ol' VCR-style original Xbox One. I can't imagine they cost more than $100-150 at this point with a controller although that situation might be different in Ireland. You can also use Game Pass as a way to keep the costs down for the games you want to play. 

 

Thanks for the suggestion, but it isn't even a financial issue for me, it's a time one. I have a huge backlog already across PS3, PS4, PS5, VR, and even some Vita games I'll probably try out some day. I've also started building up my retro collection (PS1/2/PSP) in the past year, and I fully intend to dabble in that at some point. I just don't have enough time as is to play everything I want to. Adding another console in to the mix is only going to make it worse. So even though I'm interested in a few games from Xbox, it's never been a huge priority for me, more of a "maybe one day" idea. 

 

I certainly wouldn't go for an Xbox One though. Even at launch that thing was an underpowered brick. The Series S being all-digital immediately counts that out too. The One X is interesting because I hear it's still a very competent machine that even outperforms the Series S in some respects, at least where resolution is concerned. But then it's still a last-gen machine and may be lacking in some areas. That leaves the Series X, which I'd rather wait and see the outcome of this new Xbox multi-platform strategy before I'd consider dropping that kind of money on what could very well end up being a paperweight before too long. A somewhat capable gaming PC is also on my wishlist, so that could be the best option of all but that's also not a huge priority at the moment. Thanks for the help though, appreciate it. 

[Valtekken173]

4 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

The fact of the matter is that the CMA has been weakened because of the Microsoft case. That is undeniable. The FTC has long been weak, but the Microsoft case saw them throwing at the FTC their bought off stooges in politics/media and of course rallied people online against them too. As for other companies... those companies aren't Microsoft. As I noted in the thread at the time, the amount of influence/corruption that Microsoft wields compared to even the rest of big tech is massive.

 

Microsoft's inability in that respect has been known for decades yes. They see developers as cogs and don't care about retaining talent, so you get the large amount of contractors which ultimately leads to delays and subpar quality. Xbox management is heavily incompetent so if they can figure out that problem is in doubt, but whatever the case running things at Microsoft like that is their culture, and they haven't allowed that to be different at Xbox. You're on the money with the bouncing back. The excuse of Mattrick has been constantly been thrown around by not only their fans, but straight up Spencer himself. It has been over 10 years, Xbox has spent more money than ever, and business has only further gone into the toilet. This idea that today is different and market share can't shift to any reasonable degree is nonsense. Sega and Sony both back in the day dealt massive blows to what were at the time essentially Nintendo monopolies, yet today you apparently can't shift market share single digit percentages away from those above you? Ridiculous.

You're correct that it can be a mercy to have an IP ended before it can continue as a zombie, but at the same time what about all the new IP that gets killed too? As you said, Microsoft is not a company that values creativity.

 

I agree that such a thing is no doubt the pitch. Xbox has been blundering from one big play to another because it isn't enough to simply put out a good console with great games, it has to be some grand plot to utterly crush the competition and bring about a monopoly somehow. Often I've seen people remark that the original and 360 Xboxes were the best ones, and something those have in common is that they were not made with the idea of domination in mind. The Xbone was made with the intention of dominating the living room as the all in one box, and the Series S|X was made with the idea that they'll crush everyone with their subscription that they're obviously running at a loss.

 

Where we differ is that you seem to be willing to let stuff slide due to Xbox's massive incompetence. I'm not. To me Microsoft has been taking away from gaming with their buyouts and their subscription plot was designed to eradicate game buying which would naturally lead to games having to adapt to that future which would lead to far worse games. All they have managed to do is hurt themselves yes, but I'm not just going to forget the attempt. It also doesn't help that unlike other companies who keep a firm distance from their fans, Xbox straight up cultivates toxicity within their own, which then gets sent against people online. Something which is all part of their playbook and done on purpose. So I can see why you think that I am reacting too strongly, but I'm simply not as forgiving as you on these matters.

I don't really think regulators have been weakened. The CMA's case was moronic from the beginning, because they decided to make it hinge entirely on cloud gaming of all things, so the blame for them looking like asses rests squarely on their shoulders. There were far more pressing concerns to leverage, if they really wanted to fight the acquisition (and really, as I said, not the kind of industry where the regulators wanna put up a fight and waste their resources). I also disagree with your assessment that Microsoft is more powerful than other companies. Amazon, Google, Apple...all of these have been slapped with fines and had acquisitions blocked since that acquisition, and they're comparably powerful.

 

Eh, I don't really think MS kills any more new IP than other publishers. For fuck's sake, they allowed turds like Bleeding Edge to get made and published. They're not great at project management once the projects have been greenlit, but they probably kill just as many new IPs as EA or Ubisoft. That said, I refer to my previous comment on dev mobility for an automatic solution.

 

I personally think they'll give up on their schemes and eventually revert to just making games (or funding and publishing them, I guess) since the alternative is sliding into complete irrelevance and as I said, they don't wanna bow out of gaming.

 

Eh. It's not that I forgive them, it's more that I see them as some kind of annoying fly trying to bite people and failing. Having one intention is a thing, being able to act upon it is a different one. I'll worry about them when they actually damage gaming, and I really don't see any tangible damage so far except for the damage they did to their own IP and their own platform. As for toxicity, gaming is perfectly toxic on its own so it's not like pissing in an ocean of piss will change things.

[Rozalia1]

3 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

I don't really think regulators have been weakened. The CMA's case was moronic from the beginning, because they decided to make it hinge entirely on cloud gaming of all things, so the blame for them looking like asses rests squarely on their shoulders. There were far more pressing concerns to leverage, if they really wanted to fight the acquisition (and really, as I said, not the kind of industry where the regulators wanna put up a fight and waste their resources). I also disagree with your assessment that Microsoft is more powerful than other companies. Amazon, Google, Apple...all of these have been slapped with fines and had acquisitions blocked since that acquisition, and they're comparably powerful.

 

Eh, I don't really think MS kills any more new IP than other publishers. For fuck's sake, they allowed turds like Bleeding Edge to get made and published. They're not great at project management once the projects have been greenlit, but they probably kill just as many new IPs as EA or Ubisoft. That said, I refer to my previous comment on dev mobility for an automatic solution.

 

I personally think they'll give up on their schemes and eventually revert to just making games (or funding and publishing them, I guess) since the alternative is sliding into complete irrelevance and as I said, they don't wanna bow out of gaming.

 

Eh. It's not that I forgive them, it's more that I see them as some kind of annoying fly trying to bite people and failing. Having one intention is a thing, being able to act upon it is a different one. I'll worry about them when they actually damage gaming, and I really don't see any tangible damage so far except for the damage they did to their own IP and their own platform. As for toxicity, gaming is perfectly toxic on its own so it's not like pissing in an ocean of piss will change things.

 

Much was talked about the CMA's power to be able to block deals because outside corruption or a massive miss that would cause the process to restart, they could quash something and then keep delivering the same result after every successful appeal. From what I recall that is going away, though having some trouble finding that right now with a search. Might be in the thread, but it is a very large thread. Now granted, many think the CMA should not be able to operate like that anyway, but it is a weakening.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-brad-smith-global-lobbying-tactics-openai-chatgpt-artificial-intelligence/

 

I can't find some better articles at the moment, but no, the ground simply is not equal between big tech. There have been bills in the US rewritten to stop them from damaging Microsoft, but still damaging the other big tech companies. In the EU they have ran a campaign for ages against Google. They ran a successful campaign against Apple in the EU also, though Apple appears to have gotten around it with no trouble. It wouldn't even make any sense for them to have equal power just because of them are 'big tech', as a title is not what gives you influence and corruption. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/07c507bd-2ce7-4345-85bd-0c27f408afbe

 

Quote

"The deal’s completion against the odds, marks the culmination of more than two decades of work to recast the reputation of a company that was once seen as the tech world’s pre-eminent bully. Under Brad Smith, who became its top legal officer in 2002 and also took on the title of president in 2015, Microsoft has long worked to present a more conciliatory face to regulators.It has also sought to make itself useful to governments looking for help on everything from tech policy to emergency support against cyber attacks, part of an effort to build trust and increase the odds of winning a hearing when its own business interests are challenged.Yet while completing the deal would amount to a notable victory at a time when acquisitions by big tech companies are scarce, it may also bring a turning point in Microsoft’s relations with regulators around the world.“It helped to remind everyone that they are Big Tech too,” says one former Microsoft policy executive.
Smith took over as the company’s general counsel at a low point, after the US Department of Justice came close to winning a court-ordered break-up. His rise brought a complete change in approach. While Microsoft had previously fought regulators aggressively, Smith argued for conciliation and preached the need to be more transparent with regulators. He also pushed for changes in Microsoft’s business practices to head off potential antitrust challenges before they could gather steam, according to people who have worked with him.

 

Last year, facing complaints about Microsoft’s cloud licensing practices that threatened to trigger antitrust scrutiny, the Microsoft president publicly apologised and announced changes that he claimed would deal with the complaints. That attempt to pre-empt criticism, however, has not prevented the protests from growing louder — an indication that tactics that have served Microsoft well over the past two decades may be becoming less effective as its power in markets like cloud computing grows.Some of the tactics that helped boost its profits for many years have also been challenged.
This week, it revealed it had received a demand for nearly $29bn in back taxes in the US dating back to 2004-2013, prompted by a claim that its profits to low tax countries artificially lower its taxes.In another sign of increasing pressures on the company, Smith, usually the consummate diplomat, allowed himself a rare outburst in April after British regulators said they would block the Activision deal.

 

The move was “bad for Britain”, and Microsoft’s “darkest day in our four decades” there, he told the BBC. Yet the software company was still able to persuade the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority to reconsider, crafting a compromise that led to the agency clearing the deal while also enabling it to claim greater concessions from Microsoft than those won by other regulators. While Microsoft’s victory turned heavily on an intensive legal ground game and negotiations with regulators, it also reflects efforts over many years to put the company in a more favourable light.

 

Behind the scenes, Smith has promoted a concerted campaign of influence-building with governments around the world that even some rival tech executives concede has given Microsoft an edge. The software company has amassed “one of the largest armies of corporate diplomats that we’ve ever seen”, said Manas Chawla, a researcher who has studied the company. “They include policy officials working on everything from how to regulate artificial intelligence to protecting elections and tackling cyberwarfare against sovereign states,” he said.In one sign of the greater lengths Microsoft has gone to than other tech companies, it set up a representative office at the UN in 2020, taking up a floor of a building close to the organisation’s headquarters in New York where several Nato countries also have their missions. Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy was the first head of state to pay a visit as part of an effort to encourage the company to invest in his country, while Microsoft hoped to use the contact to promote its cyber security capabilities.

 

The UN efforts are part of an operation under Smith that costs more than $1bn a year to run, according to people familiar with the company. The groups inside Microsoft reporting to him include legal, corporate and government affairs, accounting for what Microsoft describes as around 2,000 “professionals”. His organisation also includes a digital crimes unit and teams working on identifying cyber attacks and misinformation campaigns. Microsoft’s attempt to claim the moral high ground on issues like cyber security has grated with rivals, who claim the company uses its work with governments to distract attention from the role that vulnerabilities in its own software have played in causing the problems in the first place. Earlier this year, for instance, US commerce secretary Gina Raimondo was one of the several officials to have her email compromised after an online email account with Microsoft was hacked.
According to another former Microsoft executive, the company’s extensive international policy work reflects a strong belief that working to advance multilateralism and the rule of law globally will bring long-term benefits to the company and its customers. But this person also said these activities serve Microsoft’s more immediate business interests as well: “One of the things we learnt from the competition cases: we’re much better off building relationships and engaging and having people understand your business before you run into hard problems. That basic lesson has stayed with the company.”Smith’s bid to shape important policy discussions around tech has led to him striking ambitious positions on the global stage, though they have not always hit the goals that appeared to have been intended.

 

Six years ago, he called for a “digital Geneva convention” that would involve nation states swearing off cyber attacks against civilians during peacetime.According to one former staffer, that plan took a back seat after Microsoft realised that, if the proposal failed to get the backing of a majority of the UN’s 193 members, it could be reshaped in ways the company had not intended. “Be careful what you wish for,” this person added. Another person familiar with the digital Geneva convention said Microsoft had not backed off the idea and it remained a long-term “moonshot” for the company.
Smith’s willingness to put himself forward as an unofficial ambassador for the tech industry in this way has paid dividends for Microsoft, according to supporters. “Regulators are not going to give you a pass, but they will listen to you — you can hopefully have a credible voice with them, and that’s what’s really important,” one former executive said.As Microsoft finally puts the seal on its biggest ever acquisition, that strategy appears to be paying off".

 

In short, the level of corruption that Microsoft has assembled is massive. Which is no shock because Microsoft's playbook is to win in these sort of manners over opponents, never with you know, actual better products.

 

You believe that Microsoft will actually decide to just try to make good games and be successful with that? Well, you are certainly quite the optimist. You can't say it is impossible I suppose, and it could happen that they decide to write the costs off as going towards PR. Xbox is their only consumer facing product that actually make them any fans, fans which will then defend them and they can toxify to attack their opponents. I don't see it happening myself due to all their history and the culture that isn't going to go away within Microsoft.

 

That I see as the wrong way to go about things. To wait for them to have success first is a terrible thing to do because by then it could be too late to reverse things. Better to nip in the bud. If Microsoft ceases to have a platform then we don't have to worry about them unleashing whatever their next tasteless scheme to conquer gaming will be on everyone. In the end though, whatever is said online, the people out in the world are forcing the matter. It is quite the feel good story to me that the more Microsoft buys up, the more their gaming business fails. Buying up studios to hold their games hostage, 'giving away' on Game Pass all of their 1st party, all the astroturfing, none of it has worked with the public.

[mcnichoj]

6 hours ago, The Alchemist said:

That leaves the Series X, which I'd rather wait and see the outcome of this new Xbox multi-platform strategy before I'd consider dropping that kind of money on what could very well end up being a paperweight before too long. A somewhat capable gaming PC is also on my wishlist, so that could be the best option of all but that's also not a huge priority at the moment.

This is a weird mindset I've seen a lot recently. Even if MS announced they were discontinuing any new Xbox consoles, that doesn't somehow effect the current hardware out there.

Did peoples DreamCast's or any prior Sega systems explode when Sega dropped out of the console market? No.

Can you keep playing any old discontinued Nintendo or PlayStation or any other companies previous consoles? Of course.

So I don't see why people are selling their consoles or avoiding the Xbox brand now all of a sudden. Even if all their current gen offerings got ported over. I don't see them going back to the first two gens and porting that stuff. That would be a much bigger endeavor than what they're doing currently which is porting over games already built for 4k consoles.

I guess they could make a new emulator that would allow the native 360 files to play on a PS4 but I doubt Sony allows that because then people would be signing in with their Xbox accounts into the actual games and Sony has disallowed Xbox Live's presence on their hardware in the past. Trophy integration would also be questionable.

So I don't see the likes of the entire Gears of War series or Lost Odyssey coming to PlayStation in the next three years if ever.

SEGUE!

You can also buy a PC strong enough to emulate Xbox 360 games. The Xbox BC program is limited to about 1/4th of the 360's library and an even smaller portion of the OG Xbox library but with PC emulation you can play nearly everything.

You said you're getting back into older PlayStation games, well if you don't have mods for your old consoles then a PC would be a great way to play foreign and/or fan translated games. Some old JRPGs suffer from very poor translations, so you can get the most authentic experiences closest to the original intended experience thanks to sites like ROMhacking.

You didn't mention Nintendo but the same goes for them on all counts. You can play Mother 3 (aka Earthbound 2) in English and with no unnecessary localized censorship that probably would have happened had it ever been officially localized!

Then also the benefit of playing games that play better on PC over console like Baldur's Gate 3.

 

4 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

Eh, I don't really think MS kills any more new IP than other publishers. For fuck's sake, they allowed turds like Bleeding Edge to get made and published. They're not great at project management once the projects have been greenlit, but they probably kill just as many new IPs as EA or Ubisoft. That said, I refer to my previous comment on dev mobility for an automatic solution.

Bleeding Edge was a fine game, people just sucked at it. It was also in development before MS acquired them. It was intended as a GaaS title they could generate revenue off of to fund their other games like Hellblade 2. The game unfortunately bombed but luckily because they we're owned by a publisher with plenty enough money, they're still able to make Hellblade 2. Had they not already been owned by a major publisher after BE releases and bombs, they probably fold as a studio and HB2 never happens.

[DaivRules]

12 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

Xbox is their only consumer facing product that actually make them any fans

What? How do you support this bold claim?

 

 

There are several consumer facing products throughout all of Microsoft’s gamut of businesses that have fans. How do you easily make such a false claim as this? 
 

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, DaivRules said:

What? How do you support this bold claim?

 

There are several consumer facing products throughout all of Microsoft’s gamut of businesses that have fans. How do you easily make such a false claim as this? 

 

On 2/22/2024 at 12:35 AM, DaivRules said:

Clearly you didn’t understand anything I previously replied with. I can only explain it, I can’t understand it for you. 

 

You know, it was good of you to mention harassment before. Considering a certain other poster in the thread has and continues to post misinformation, to the point that others have become annoyed and stopped bothering to correct it... which got no response from you, yet you keep popping up to take pot shots at me... which considering your history of this, what does that look like? Please, enough. I can take many things, even direct insults as we've seen from a certain poster here and another notable former member, but you're really making this forum unpleasant for me with how you treat me. As I have told you many times, I would like a private dialogue so you can tell me specifically why you have taken such issue with me to the point you'd treat me in this manner. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but at least stop with this.

 

That will be my final word with you on this matter as the thread should not have to suffer this. If you wish to have your own then so be it, I will not be responding to it.

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

 

You know, it was good of you to mention harassment before. Considering a certain other poster in the thread has and continues to post misinformation, to the point that others have become annoyed and stopped bothering to correct it... which got no response from you, yet you keep popping up to take pot shots at me... which considering your history of this, what does that look like? Please, enough. I can take many things, even direct insults as we've seen from a certain poster here and another notable former member, but you're really making this forum unpleasant for me with how you treat me. As I have told you many times, I would like a private dialogue so you can tell me specifically why you have taken such issue with me to the point you'd treat me in this manner. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but at least stop with this.

 

That will be my final word with you on this matter as the thread should not have to suffer this. If you wish to have your own then so be it, I will not be responding to it.

Don’t spin my responses to the content of your posts on the topic into something it’s not. I’m challenging the content of your posts, just as you’re claiming you’re doing to others. You flat out call other people’s posts lies, I’m asking you to explain your claims. 
 

And if others have stopped posting, let them speak for themselves. 
 

You’ve already spread lies that there is a network of people here coordinating against you, your claim of people fearing to post doesn’t have credibility. 
 

[Colin_Raleigh]

I'll say one thing up front about what's currently going on, the issues and discussions connected to Microsoft releasing games on other platforms has definitely caused some serious controversy on this website. I don't think I've ever seen this much heated debating on PSNProfiles before. It's even given me my first stalker on here. 😂 

[mcnichoj]

43 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

You know, it was good of you to mention harassment before. Considering a certain other poster in the thread has and continues to post misinformation, to the point that others have become annoyed and stopped bothering to correct it... which got no response from you, yet you keep popping up to take pot shots at me... which considering your history of this, what does that look like? Please, enough. I can take many things, even direct insults as we've seen from a certain poster here and another notable former member, but you're really making this forum unpleasant for me with how you treat me. As I have told you many times, I would like a private dialogue so you can tell me specifically why you have taken such issue with me to the point you'd treat me in this manner. If you're not willing to do that, fine, but at least stop with this.

 

That will be my final word with you on this matter as the thread should not have to suffer this. If you wish to have your own then so be it, I will not be responding to it.

You get mad at me for deflecting Microsoft related criticism by bringing up Sony which actually has some relevance but then you completely deflect his retort about your claim by bringing up me?

He's absolutely right. I imagine somewhere some chuckle nuts are arguing over Apple, Windows and Linux as the best OS, software, etc. in the same exact way people argue over Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox.

[Rozalia1]

13 hours ago, mcnichoj said:

You get mad at me for deflecting Microsoft related criticism by bringing up Sony which actually has some relevance but then you completely deflect his retort about your claim by bringing up me?

He's absolutely right. I imagine somewhere some chuckle nuts are arguing over Apple, Windows and Linux as the best OS, software, etc. in the same exact way people argue over Nintendo, PlayStation and Xbox.

 

Don't take it the wrong way, but in the scheme of this matter you're not special. This shtick (from them, not you) of singling me out to take pops, and then waste my time when I respond as they'll just indirectly call me an idiot and make me out to be a menace is getting on 2 years by this point. I have simply tired of the disrespect.

 

I will answer you repeating their argument this one time. Please have the courtesy to not do so again if they keep posting after I've already let them have the final word between us. 

 

Quote

You believe that Microsoft will actually decide to just try to make good games and be successful with that? Well, you are certainly quite the optimist. You can't say it is impossible I suppose, and it could happen that they decide to write the costs off as going towards PR. Xbox is their only consumer facing product that actually make them any fans, fans which will then defend them and they can toxify to attack their opponents. I don't see it happening myself due to all their history and the culture that isn't going to go away within Microsoft.

 

The above is the full quote. The part that followed after the comma that was left out being important, but I will expand.

 

What is a fan? A fanatic? Someone who uses a product? No, it goes further than that. Windows which you've mentioned for example. It has a massive amount of users, but it is commonly understood that Windows is something people tolerate due to you know, monopoly, rather than something that they actually love. This is different to a product like the Apple iPhone, Sony PlayStation, Nintendo Switch, and you could go on with other examples. The Microsoft Xbox is the product that has that sort of effect for them, largely stemming from people's experience with the original Xbox and Xbox 360. That was a long time ago, but such is the power of a fan's love, as they can keep fighting for you even if you fall off. Other products of theirs like Zune (discontinued), Microsoft phone (discontinued), Surface, all do/did have their small number of fans of course, it should go without saying as even the worst stuff (not claiming those products are the worst) has their fans, but nothing in comparison to what Xbox does for them. Also, no need to let me know that there are different levels to fandom, I am aware, what I'm referring to is obvious.

---

 

With that sorted, back on the main topic of the thread. Tom Warren has said on the XboxEra Podcast 200 that the next Elder Scrolls is going to be day 1 on PlayStation (could be PS6 by the time it comes out). Warren is someone who seems really embedded in the Microsoft network and so gets a lot correct in relation to them (because they feed him information they want out there before it is official) and spreads FUD for them too (he helped spread FUD before their release that the Series S was going to be comparable to the PS5 to support Microsoft's power narrative).

[DaivRules]

4 hours ago, Rozalia1 said:

This shtick (from them, not you) of singling me out to take pops, and then waste my time when I respond as they'll just indirectly call me an idiot and make me out to be a menace is getting on 2 years by this point. I have simply tired of the disrespect.

More lies and libel from you. I’m not singling you out, you’re the one who posted unsubstantiated claims and I’m challenging them and staying on topic.  It’s not pops/pot shots to quote what you wrote and ask you to provide evidence for your claims. 
 

The fact that you refuse to respond to me about what you know I’m challenging and trying to twist it and redefine your original comments I quoted shows you were disingenuous from the beginning. 
 

When you gish gallop like you tend to do on all your posts you have repeatedly mixed in your opinions, but also include “factual” claims that are bogus. I’ll continue to challenge your fake facts and I’m sure you’ll continue to try to libel me again and twist my legitimate on-topic responses into something it’s not. I’ll stop challenging false claims when there aren’t any. 
 

Microsoft was never going to take its entire library completely off PlayStation. They were going to pick and choose some of their bigger titles that would be exclusive to Xbox or at least a timed exclusive. And now the narrative is that they’re weak because they’re still releasing titles on other consoles. The cognitive dissonance runs really strong in both narratives. 
 

 

Edited February 25 by DaivRules

[SelectiveGamer]

So does this actually mean I'll be able to continue to play future Crash and Spyro games on PlayStation?

 

Assuming, of course, they didn't outright kill the franchises for good (which I'm assuming they did)

[DaivRules]

38 minutes ago, SelectiveGamer said:

So does this actually mean I'll be able to continue to play future Crash and Spyro games on PlayStation?

 

Assuming, of course, they didn't outright kill the franchises for good (which I'm assuming they did)

There has been no news of pulling Microsoft games from PlayStation, only news of four small Microsoft games being released on PlayStation. 

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, SelectiveGamer said:

So does this actually mean I'll be able to continue to play future Crash and Spyro games on PlayStation?

 

Assuming, of course, they didn't outright kill the franchises for good (which I'm assuming they did)

 

Toys for Bob was hit hard, but still exists, so odds should be decent that they'll make more. Of course, if Microsoft transitions to a third party publisher than they no longer have reason to write off failures as they have done up to this point, so if whatever comes next doesn't do well enough then that could be the end of those series.

[JediKnight_327]

I never disliked xbox for the games it had. I disliked it because of all the rubbish about live service, streaming services, always online, and paywalls for online gaming (sadly all of which Sony also now promote in various games and hardware).

 

I will consider buying MS games if they are available on disc and can be resold, but if they are digital only, I'll pass.

[Valtekken173]

On 2/25/2024 at 1:55 AM, Rozalia1 said:

Much was talked about the CMA's power to be able to block deals because outside corruption or a massive miss that would cause the process to restart, they could quash something and then keep delivering the same result after every successful appeal. From what I recall that is going away, though having some trouble finding that right now with a search. Might be in the thread, but it is a very large thread. Now granted, many think the CMA should not be able to operate like that anyway, but it is a weakening.

 

https://www.politico.eu/article/microsoft-brad-smith-global-lobbying-tactics-openai-chatgpt-artificial-intelligence/

 

I can't find some better articles at the moment, but no, the ground simply is not equal between big tech. There have been bills in the US rewritten to stop them from damaging Microsoft, but still damaging the other big tech companies. In the EU they have ran a campaign for ages against Google. They ran a successful campaign against Apple in the EU also, though Apple appears to have gotten around it with no trouble. It wouldn't even make any sense for them to have equal power just because of them are 'big tech', as a title is not what gives you influence and corruption. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/07c507bd-2ce7-4345-85bd-0c27f408afbe

 

 

In short, the level of corruption that Microsoft has assembled is massive. Which is no shock because Microsoft's playbook is to win in these sort of manners over opponents, never with you know, actual better products.

 

You believe that Microsoft will actually decide to just try to make good games and be successful with that? Well, you are certainly quite the optimist. You can't say it is impossible I suppose, and it could happen that they decide to write the costs off as going towards PR. Xbox is their only consumer facing product that actually make them any fans, fans which will then defend them and they can toxify to attack their opponents. I don't see it happening myself due to all their history and the culture that isn't going to go away within Microsoft.

 

That I see as the wrong way to go about things. To wait for them to have success first is a terrible thing to do because by then it could be too late to reverse things. Better to nip in the bud. If Microsoft ceases to have a platform then we don't have to worry about them unleashing whatever their next tasteless scheme to conquer gaming will be on everyone. In the end though, whatever is said online, the people out in the world are forcing the matter. It is quite the feel good story to me that the more Microsoft buys up, the more their gaming business fails. Buying up studios to hold their games hostage, 'giving away' on Game Pass all of their 1st party, all the astroturfing, none of it has worked with the public.

Eh. The CMA is just one State's authority, and it's not even a big one. I'm not really worried about it being weaker (and I'm still not really convinced it's weaker) because it'd only affect that one State. If the EU regulators, who are usually the tougher ones, were actually and demonstrably made weaker, I'd start worrying. As for the FTC they've been a joke for the longest time and this wasn't gonna change things one way or the other.

 

Off of the back of that, I'm not surprised MS enjoys a special status in regards to the US antitrust, but then again so do Amazon, Apple, Google etc. in other cases and other respects, and I'm not even naming these companies because they're in the tech business, but because they're at the top of the market. It just so happens that in the age of IT the top companies are tech companies. Even with all its tactics, MS gets routinely slapped when the shit they pull is actually worrying (and again, gaming simply isn't important enough of an industry for antitrust to worry about it - these authorities are less about protecting the consumer and more about protecting the market, and due to the aforementioned characteristics of the market in question it's functionally impossible for one company to obtain a monopoly and hurt its competitors through that). In short, I remain unconvinced both of Microsoft's actual power and of the regulators' lack thereof.

 

I believe they'll be forced to either do that or drop out, and when push comes to shove they'll pick the former. I've already stated why the current course isn't sustainable not even medium term, let alone long term. Might take a while before they get it through their heads, though.

 

I don't like your line of thinking because it's the same line of thinking that China goes through when justifying mass surveillance of their citizens, or the US when it passes atrocious shit like the Patriot Act. FIRST the crime gets committed and THEN the punishment gets dealt, but trying to PREVENT crime altogether in this sort of way doesn't sit right with me. Again, I'll be worried when I see them succeed, not before then. Meanwhile far more sinister shit is ACTUALLY happening and nobody's doing shit about it, and very few people are even saying anything about it (mainly ballooning dev costs, awful monetization practices, terrible design philosophies, zero risk taking, companies laying off devs en masse and not fostering talent growth, choosing short term profits instead and a myriad of other issues CURRENTLY actually plaguing gaming in a systemic and endemic manner - Microsoft's potential monopoly is the least of my worries when gaming is in this sorry state). Besides, any plan like Microsoft's was never gonna work in this industry because of the way the industry is structured in the first place (but I repeat myself, I've said this multiple times already).

On 2/25/2024 at 2:01 AM, mcnichoj said:

Bleeding Edge was a fine game, people just sucked at it. It was also in development before MS acquired them. It was intended as a GaaS title they could generate revenue off of to fund their other games like Hellblade 2. The game unfortunately bombed but luckily because they we're owned by a publisher with plenty enough money, they're still able to make Hellblade 2. Had they not already been owned by a major publisher after BE releases and bombs, they probably fold as a studio and HB2 never happens.

Bleeding Edge was anything but a fine game, and Microsoft's hands off management approach does not fucking work. They keep putting out dogshit just because they don't have the nuts to cancel projects that deserve cancellation (or at least a rework, who the fuck allowed BGS to release Starfield WITH THE SAME DAMN ENGINE AS THEIR PREVIOUS THOUSAND GAMES?). I do agree that it's better for smaller studios to be owned by a bigger publisher (more specifically a console manufacturer) because it's safer for them in case anything bombs seeing as a console manufacturer's games are made to showcase the console's capabilities and pull users into the ecosystem, so considerations like revenue and MAUs are secondary, but God DAMN Microsoft needs to fucking clean house. Leaving devs running around like headless chickens is not fucking working.

[NxtDoc]

All makes sense.  I seen this day coming around 2016.  Things started to point that Microsoft was interested in infiltrating other platforms. 

 

Several events took place.  And if you listened to Satya from the beginning the direction was evident.  Their MOVES, were contradicting the Xbox PR to placate the fans.  Some moves, and evidence.  Play Anywhere, trying to tear down the image of exclusives, as somehow being "bad", talks of 2 Billion gamers and mobile phones being ideal business blueprint for gaming (mind boggling as some were convinced Xbox was just somehow going to draw them in, and NOT Xbox going to them, and a scary thought of MS liking mobile phone games), Gamepass and being the "Netflix" of games, and Amazon, Google, and Apple were their competitors.  MS buying up entire Publishers with undeniable IP (required to infiltrate)

 

That was all one needed to see this direction.  

 

Microsoft is only interested $.  They don't respect games as an art.  Which is why they ran all of their series into the ground.  Halo, Fable, Gears and Forza aren't what they used to be.  All are suffering under them.  I personally won't be supporting MS on PS or my Switch.

 

 

Edited February 26 by NxtDoc
Spelling errors

[Rozalia1]

15 hours ago, Valtekken173 said:

Eh. The CMA is just one State's authority, and it's not even a big one. I'm not really worried about it being weaker (and I'm still not really convinced it's weaker) because it'd only affect that one State. If the EU regulators, who are usually the tougher ones, were actually and demonstrably made weaker, I'd start worrying. As for the FTC they've been a joke for the longest time and this wasn't gonna change things one way or the other.

 

Off of the back of that, I'm not surprised MS enjoys a special status in regards to the US antitrust, but then again so do Amazon, Apple, Google etc. in other cases and other respects, and I'm not even naming these companies because they're in the tech business, but because they're at the top of the market. It just so happens that in the age of IT the top companies are tech companies. Even with all its tactics, MS gets routinely slapped when the shit they pull is actually worrying (and again, gaming simply isn't important enough of an industry for antitrust to worry about it - these authorities are less about protecting the consumer and more about protecting the market, and due to the aforementioned characteristics of the market in question it's functionally impossible for one company to obtain a monopoly and hurt its competitors through that). In short, I remain unconvinced both of Microsoft's actual power and of the regulators' lack thereof.

 

I believe they'll be forced to either do that or drop out, and when push comes to shove they'll pick the former. I've already stated why the current course isn't sustainable not even medium term, let alone long term. Might take a while before they get it through their heads, though.

 

I don't like your line of thinking because it's the same line of thinking that China goes through when justifying mass surveillance of their citizens, or the US when it passes atrocious shit like the Patriot Act. FIRST the crime gets committed and THEN the punishment gets dealt, but trying to PREVENT crime altogether in this sort of way doesn't sit right with me. Again, I'll be worried when I see them succeed, not before then. Meanwhile far more sinister shit is ACTUALLY happening and nobody's doing shit about it, and very few people are even saying anything about it (mainly ballooning dev costs, awful monetization practices, terrible design philosophies, zero risk taking, companies laying off devs en masse and not fostering talent growth, choosing short term profits instead and a myriad of other issues CURRENTLY actually plaguing gaming in a systemic and endemic manner - Microsoft's potential monopoly is the least of my worries when gaming is in this sorry state). Besides, any plan like Microsoft's was never gonna work in this industry because of the way the industry is structured in the first place (but I repeat myself, I've said this multiple times already).

 

Actually not the case. If the ABK deal had been blocked by the CMA then that would have been it because it was a major regulator specified in contract as needing a pass for the deal to go ahead. The other two being the American and EU regulators. If blocked by other regulators then the deal could still advance, but not if blocked by those three. As for the EU... don't trust them as you do.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-uk-steals-a-march-on-brussels-over-activision-merger-k57tst389

 

A quote in case you can't read the article.

 

Quote

By contrast, Brussels merger rules are still dictated by a conservative framework that prioritises the here and now impact on consumers, rather than foreseeing the threat of future monopolies.
 

A recent study found that the Brussels competition unit relies on a small band of external economic consultancies who lobby on behalf of their corporate clients on merger and competition decisions. The European Commission is also poised to appoint a former Obama-era enforcer who had side jobs consulting Amazon and Apple as its chief competition economist. Both US giants have been the subject of antitrust and state-aid tax investigations in recent years.

One EU official says the CMA's disruptive decisions are causing "fear and resentment" in Brussels.

 

Finding this stuff with a search engine is difficult so I'd have to comb the ABK thread, but during the ABK deal from what I recall Microsoft had a certain woman of theirs as one of the 'consultants' to the EU regulator. Having a Microsoft stooge as your 'expert' hardly appears clean.

 

Now I do understand seeing them as stronger than the rest, but I have my doubts. The EU has a reputation of handing out fines (irrelevant to the company) and just letting the damage be done. Them going after the likes of Apple/Google also starts looking different when you learn that Microsoft is backing such efforts, and as I've said, which you disagree which is fine, looks to me like those big companies getting into trouble because a big company with more influence in driving the effort.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/cc6bd66c-6341-4367-85cc-86d274102378

 

Quote

The $200bn video games industry is reckoning with its biggest slowdown in 30 years, as the huge growth driven by smartphone gaming and the latest generation of consoles reaches its limits.

 

Hardware sales are slowing, with Sony cutting its forecast for PlayStation 5 sales this week. Consumer spending on mobile gaming declined last year, down 2 per cent to $107.3bn according to Data.ai, which forecasts low single-digit growth in 2024.

 

The sense of crisis across the games sector is in sharp contrast to growth achieved during the Covid-19 pandemic, which allowed many locked-down consumers to spend their excess time and money on games. That peak marked the culmination of a winning streak for the digital entertainment business that began with the original PlayStation in the mid-1990s and was accelerated further by Apple’s iPhone.

 

Microsoft, whose Xbox has been left a distant third behind Nintendo and Sony, said this week it was looking to sell more of its own games on rival consoles, as it looks to tap new sources of growth in an increasingly saturated market after paying $75bn for Activision Blizzard last year.

 

The widely anticipated launch of a new Nintendo console later this year may only accelerate the drop-off in PlayStation and Xbox sales, as players save up for the next new thing.

 

“There is a console-specific problem in the games industry: nobody is buying an Xbox, PS5 has peaked at the cost of significant discounting and everyone is waiting for Switch 2.0,” said Gareth Sutcliffe at Enders Analysis. “Consoles have proven that they are not a growth model for gaming — they top out at a very clear number.”
 

Phil Spencer, chief of Microsoft Gaming, pointed to a recent report by tech author and investor Matthew Ball, showing that the games industry grew by less than 1 per cent last year.

 

“That’s slower than inflation, slower than most GDP growth, which kind of means [gaming’s] relevance shrunk last year relative to what has happened in other [entertainment] categories,” Spencer said.
 

He added that the “fundamental opportunity” for the sector was finding new sources of growth among players who cannot afford a $500 console or a $70 packaged game. “How do we deliver games to people who don’t play and can’t play today?” Spencer said. “That’s as an industry where I think we should be focused.”

 

Cutting prices is a double-edged sword. The huge popularity of free-to-play online games such as Fortnite and Roblox consumes hours of playtime that had previously been spent on $70 titles. The strong network effects of multiplayer games, such as Call of Duty, also make it harder for new entrants to succeed. “Thousands of titles are hitting every month and the success rate is very low,” he said. “You’re faced with significant challenges in trying to break new product into the market.”

 

I think you need to consider how the money men at Microsoft are going to see things. To them console gaming is a straight up dead end. Mobile and Cloud have been the golden geese to chase but...

 

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/mobile-gaming-decline-newzoo-2022

 

I don't even need to link something for Cloud gaming as I'm sure you know how that hasn't taken off. The guys at Microsoft management being as they are is why Spencer and his team considered converting all their existing studios into mobile ones, as they know how consoles are seen by management, but having clarity for once they realised that they have absolutely no means of making such a move successful. Like I said previously, I can certainly see Nadella keeping the gaming division around due to his regret in cutting the phone division, but whoever the next CEO is going to be isn't going to have that over their head. What they're going to see is either a money pit, or if they can actually turn their business around, a division with razor thin margins. Why spend the money on gaming for such little reward when you invest the money elsewhere, that sort of thing.

 

That is an unfair framing that could be used for any preventive action. We're talking the matter of monopoly, not the rights of people. On the relevant matter you need to protect the industry so that those in it can operate on a fair playing field. If you allow a company to obliterate everyone else with dirty tactics then it becomes too late to fix the issue. The ruined businesses that got destroyed aren't going to suddenly revive. All the brand damage that happened as they got ruined by the big company isn't going to suddenly repair itself.

 

I think we're not going to budge on some of this as we see these matters differently, which is fine.

Edited February 26 by Rozalia1

[Valtekken173]

On 2/26/2024 at 5:25 PM, Rozalia1 said:

 

Actually not the case. If the ABK deal had been blocked by the CMA then that would have been it because it was a major regulator specified in contract as needing a pass for the deal to go ahead. The other two being the American and EU regulators. If blocked by other regulators then the deal could still advance, but not if blocked by those three. As for the EU... don't trust them as you do.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/game-on-as-uk-steals-a-march-on-brussels-over-activision-merger-k57tst389

 

A quote in case you can't read the article.

 

 

Finding this stuff with a search engine is difficult so I'd have to comb the ABK thread, but during the ABK deal from what I recall Microsoft had a certain woman of theirs as one of the 'consultants' to the EU regulator. Having a Microsoft stooge as your 'expert' hardly appears clean.

 

Now I do understand seeing them as stronger than the rest, but I have my doubts. The EU has a reputation of handing out fines (irrelevant to the company) and just letting the damage be done. Them going after the likes of Apple/Google also starts looking different when you learn that Microsoft is backing such efforts, and as I've said, which you disagree which is fine, looks to me like those big companies getting into trouble because a big company with more influence in driving the effort.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/cc6bd66c-6341-4367-85cc-86d274102378

 

 

I think you need to consider how the money men at Microsoft are going to see things. To them console gaming is a straight up dead end. Mobile and Cloud have been the golden geese to chase but...

 

https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/mobile-gaming-decline-newzoo-2022

 

I don't even need to link something for Cloud gaming as I'm sure you know how that hasn't taken off. The guys at Microsoft management being as they are is why Spencer and his team considered converting all their existing studios into mobile ones, as they know how consoles are seen by management, but having clarity for once they realised that they have absolutely no means of making such a move successful. Like I said previously, I can certainly see Nadella keeping the gaming division around due to his regret in cutting the phone division, but whoever the next CEO is going to be isn't going to have that over their head. What they're going to see is either a money pit, or if they can actually turn their business around, a division with razor thin margins. Why spend the money on gaming for such little reward when you invest the money elsewhere, that sort of thing.

 

That is an unfair framing that could be used for any preventive action. We're talking the matter of monopoly, not the rights of people. On the relevant matter you need to protect the industry so that those in it can operate on a fair playing field. If you allow a company to obliterate everyone else with dirty tactics then it becomes too late to fix the issue. The ruined businesses that got destroyed aren't going to suddenly revive. All the brand damage that happened as they got ruined by the big company isn't going to suddenly repair itself.

 

I think we're not going to budge on some of this as we see these matters differently, which is fine.

I have no idea why MS and Activision would put the CMA on the same level as the FTC and the EU, but it goes without saying that I disagree with their assessment of the CMA's importance. One State can't be that fundamental.

 

As for the EU, I'm far from trusting them. I don't even trust my government really, let alone trusting a supranational entity like the EU. I'm just saying that historically they've been the ones to rain on corporations' parade, far more so than the FTC at the very least, that's all.

 

I'm not really considering console gaming in the current form as what Microsoft will support. As I said, handheld, low power devices with maybe a bigger console when they can spend a little on it every now and then, marketed as the "powerful" option. The current console generation framework is done for them, if you ask me. The new framework they have in mind is very likely to be far more sustainable long term, so the books are gonna look better and there won't really be a need to shutter the Xbox division.

 

Can't say I agree with you, as you said at the end of this post. I can't condone preventing issues like this. And yeah, damage isn't going to repair itself and all, but it's the only fair way to ensure someone has actually done some damage. Breaking up companies to fix monopolies has happened in the past and those industries have trotted along just fine overall.

 

But yeah, we can end it here since as I understand it we're at the very least getting each other's points. Now that the acquisition saga is done and the games are being put on PS and Nintendo consoles too I'd argue both of us got a better result than we would've expected out of it. I also managed to get a PS5 Slim for a decent price in the middle of all this so I'll spend the next few days playing and I don't think I'll even check the forum, hehe.

[Eraezr]

 

 

[Rozalia1]

Thanks for sharing @Eraezr, though such articles push the usual annoyances you often see in the gaming media.

 

Quote

It feels like the video game console is at a crossroads. With Xbox Series X and S floundering in the ‘console war’, Sony suggesting PlayStation 5 is approaching the second half of its life after missing sales targets, and uncertainty around the release of the Nintendo Switch 2, there is growing concern that the traditional video game console business could be under threat.

 

This sort of stuff. Xbox is as usual a disaster, so let's try and put some dirt on the rest so it looks to not be specific to Xbox. Did PlayStation miss the target it set? Yes, they missed a number that when announced everyone saw as being crazy high and even then they still nearly got there. Nintendo meanwhile is taking more time instead of blundering about like Microsoft does so they're in trouble? Or maybe, just maybe, they're actually acting as a competent business does. Same with the whole 'traditional gaming is dead, subscriptions are the future'. Xbox bet everything on subscriptions because traditional gaming for them was dying (essentially dead now), so it must mean that traditional gaming is dying for everyone and eventually everyone will soon be forced to do what constant loser Xbox is doing. Every single problem that Xbox faces will have these clowns claim exists for PlayStation & Nintendo.

 

Anyway, as for the message of the article itself. Anybody willing to just be honest could make the easy prediction that Microsoft has been wondering about continuing in the console business or not. We're thankfully past that annoying stage of things, pushed by holier than thou neutrals and team green, where saying the blindingly obvious regarding the state of Xbox's business, got you marked down as some raving lunatic warrior. The rest though? Interesting. He talks about how even in 2007 they were worrying about it being the last console generation, then lists reasons which are even worse today on why it wasn't, but then concludes that hey, maybe the people at Microsoft are correct. By all means people can come to silly conclusions, but another possibility is he is doing a mind trick to whoever at Microsoft might read it. For those ??? at what I said. It is one of those tricks they were doing even 2000+ years ago with rulers. Telling the ruler that he is wrong, an idiot, whatever would very likely not only get you ignored, but obviously worse. So a trick some did was lay out the whole situation, but then conclude that the ruler was likely correct even though that obviously wasn't the correct conclusion. The ruler would then think about it, realise what the real conclusion was, and change their mind while believing that they themselves worked the matter out.

 

As for him mentioning the wargames business, again, no surprise to me.

 

 

As others like Peter Molyneux have mentioned, the mindset over at Microsoft is absolutely horrible because it is never about how they can put out a better product, but on how they can crush the competition. Be it Apple, Google, Sony, so forth, they become obsessed with tearing down the competition instead of just doing the most basic of things. Put out a good product. Stuff like this is why PlayStation/Nintendo have serious businessmen in charge of them while Xbox is ran by platform warriors.

[fenrir54565]

 

Edited March 27 by fenrir54565

[Rozalia1]

Thank you @fenrir54565. I think the store news on top of the hardware news is worth a thread, so I've created one: 

At first I thought this was Microsoft PR at work, so lies to try and paper over the negative narrative out there about their platform falling apart. However, as I have thought on it... I think I can believe that they are going to do new hardware. Spencer has been talking about handhelds a lot, to the point that one of the articles out there is that 'he can't stop thinking about them'. As such I think it possible that he has conned Microsoft management once again, by pointing at Valve as a growing threat to Windows.

Edited March 27 by Rozalia1