Support NeoGAF

[Three]

yeah. We are in the project phase of making our own website. Plus I am also doing coding too.
At least I wont have any classes in the summer.

Cool, best of luck with the project. I'm guessing it's javascript?

 

[feynoob]

Cool, best of luck with the project. I'm guessing it's javascript?

Its python. Little bit hard since I failed my first class. This is a redo.

 

[gothmog]

Its python. Little bit hard since I failed my first class. This is a redo.

Python is pretty easy. Ping me if you need some help.

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

What’s the next crucial date/decision?

When does the CMA respond to MS’s remedies?

 

[Sanepar]

This isn't even the primary issue GP faces with these platforms. The issues MS has had with getting GP support onto the big 3 platforms they want to expand onto (Steam/PSN/Nintendo) is specifically around these items, as per knowledge i've heard on the matter:

• Rev. Split for total amount of platform users who utilize said service (how much does PSN/Nintendo/Valve get per user who uses GP on their platform). Say I was subscribed to GP at $14.99 per month- how much of that 14.99 should the respective platform holder get if I use the service on their platform.
  • As an addendum to this, there is also contention around multi-platform users - how much does this revenue get further split if the user, say, plays on PS as a console, then switches over to Switch when on the go - does MS split the rev. split between both Sony and Nintendo, or do they base it off of how much total time the user spent in that month on which platform?
• In-game MTX sales - If a in-game sale occurs for a GP game, say you're buying some cosmetics in Halo Infinite: does that sale go through the Xbox or Windows store, or does it go through the specific platform holder's store?
  • Obviously, MS stands to make the most if all the in-game mtx was instead going through their store front. A lot of the fiscal fighting over this is also exactly what we saw play out with Apple regarding them allowing sales to bypass the App Store. For Sony/Nintendo, they also gain value from these transactions going through their store front in the form high increasing MAU and SW revenue, so for them, they are incentivized to make all of the in-game transactions go through their store front, but doing so means they also have to take on the costs associated with hosting that content, so they'd want the full 30% they normally get, and MS really doesn't want to pay that.
• GP-Only or non-GP native releases as well- very self-explanatory: will the games also be on offer in their respective platforms as a native client that a user can purchase and access without the need for GP. While Steam has already won this fight when it comes to getting MS support on their platform, with Sony and Nintendo, MS would vastly prefer to have their respective roll outs of GP have the games be GP exclusive in order to maximize the amount of users they could onboard; it would save them the 30% cut they'd have to hand out to the respective platform holder for the sale, while also ensuring they don't have to compete with each respective store's sale prices.
  • This also creates a conflict for the 2nd bullet point, because if the games are not being natively released, then that'd also mean that, in a case where Sony/Nintendo still are processing in-game mtx purchases, they need to host all of those items on their respective stores, without the one item that'd make them the most money: the full-game itself.

What MS was attempting to do with their market displacement strategy was to create as much leverage as they could to ensure they could get favorable terms on the above 3 items thanks to the audience they had hoped to capture with GP. Hasn't panned out so far but we'll see how things go should the ATVI deal go through and GP starts getting things like CoD.

I understand your points but I hard believe Sony would allow GP on Playstation.

Besides that I don't believe Xbox plans to have COD or other ABK games long term multplatform.

I think their goal is cloud gaming and gamepass. Not even consoles.

What they want is that consumers in the future will be able to access their games only by cloud and using gamepass with no ability to purchase a game.

What is the chance consoles hw will be relevant in 20 years?

 

[Edmund]

I understand your points but I hard believe Sony would allow GP on Playstation.

Besides that I don't believe Xbox plans to have COD or other ABK games long term multplatform.

I think their goal is cloud gaming and gamepass. Not even consoles.

What they want is that consumers in the future will be able to access their games only by cloud and using gamepass with no ability to purchase a game.

What is the chance consoles hw will be relevant in 20 years?

As long as gaming pcs and laptops are being made, why not consoles too?

Anyway the sentiment over at ERA seems that they are extremely confident the deal is going through.

So all it takes is that song and dance by Brad Smith to convince the regulators that the deal can pass?

 

[demigod]

As long as gaming pcs and laptops are being made, why not consoles too?

Anyway the sentiment over at ERA seems that they are extremely confident the deal is going through.

So all it takes is that song and dance by Brad Smith to convince the regulators that the deal can pass?

You know it didn't go well for them since they didn't put out any statement all week long and especially on a Friday.

 

[gothmog]

You know it didn't go well for them since they didn't put out any statement all week long and especially on a Friday.

I thought it was funny that the only statement we got was a clarification that Brad misspoke. This is why you are usually asked to not editorialize PR statements. Just share them.

 

[SneakersSO]

I understand your points but I hard believe Sony would allow GP on Playstation.

Besides that I don't believe Xbox plans to have COD or other ABK games long term multplatform.

I think their goal is cloud gaming and gamepass. Not even consoles.

What they want is that consumers in the future will be able to access their games only by cloud and using gamepass with no ability to purchase a game.

What is the chance consoles hw will be relevant in 20 years?

I don't know why you think Sony wouldn't allow GP on PS should the terms/conditions be beneficial for them to do so. I've outlined on the last page the big negotiation items that is currently stopping it. If those negotiations were to ever put those individual items in a place where Sony feels their ecosystem benefits from the inclusion, then it goes without saying they'd allow it. Heck, Sony already allows multiple sub services within their ecosystem, so they aren't against it. It just has to make sense and not jeopardize their ability to sell SW at full price.

MS will almost assuredly ensure CoD and almost all of ABK remains multiplatform. This is a deal orders of magnitude larger than Bethesda, and its the type of deal where they really wouldn't want to compromise on the value they are buying - lowering the platforms those releases are on would do so. And even on a larger timescale, like for example say its 10 years right: thats even less reason for them to simply cut off multiplatform support. You're telling me MS is going to spend a decade enjoying the extremely lucrative revenue streams its getting from ABK, simply to turn around and cut it all off? For what? The long-term goal of MS in the gaming space is to increase the platforms they are publishing on, not decrease. Thats always been the plan, its just doing so in a way where they have leverage to set terms that are most beneficial to them.

As for Cloud, thats a whole other thing. I'm not sure MS will ever be able to convince consumers to adopt a content distribution model they aren't adopting in sufficient enough numbers as is, and that has more to do with the infrastructure issues Cloud faces. Sure, long term, most folks anticipate the issues with internet infrastructure in many gaming markets will improve, but so far there hasn't been enough political traction (at least in the USA) to ensure that'll happen, and this is unquestionably one of the most lucrative regions for gaming, next to China.

I don't think anyone can answer what gaming will look like 20 years from, just like you couldn't go back to 2003 and tell folks that some of the biggest revenue drivers in gaming would be games we play on our mobile devices. If network infrastructures in some of the most lucrative regions for gaming in the world don't reach a point where Cloud adoption is allowed to thrive, then i'm not sure that the need for devices to locally render gaming experiences will ever go away. I see a lot of this when folks discuss Cloud, speaking as if its some inevitability, but we've been talking about Cloud rendering in this way since 2010 and we still have nothing but burnt capital and not much else to show for it.

As long as gaming pcs and laptops are being made, why not consoles too?

Anyway the sentiment over at ERA seems that they are extremely confident the deal is going through.

So all it takes is that song and dance by Brad Smith to convince the regulators that the deal can pass?

Era has been unbelievably confident that this deal would pass without issue this entire time. Its a big cycle over there with this. I've outlined previously how I view how this week's presentation went down, but they are completely ignoring some of the stated objections of both the EC and CMA in favor of believing that the Nvidia and Nintendo deals completely wipe away any issues that regulators could have with this.

I'm not even saying this deal is dead - it very much isn't. But its got a high bar to clear and I personally do not feel that the deals MS has made alleviate the stated objections of the EC, and especially the CMA.

 

[SneakersSO]

What’s the next crucial date/decision?

When does the CMA respond to MS’s remedies?

MS presents their proposed remedies to the CMA on the 28th (4 days!). CMA has some decision regarding those remedies they have to make in Mid-March, followed by their final decision in April.

 

[gothmog]

I'm not even saying this deal is dead - it very much isn't. But its got a high bar to clear and I personally do not feel that the deals MS has made alleviate the stated objections of the EC, and especially the CMA.

I think the deal is dead enough that most companies would have walked away by now. The objections are real and I think Microsoft still thinks this is some kind of theater where they just need to offer a small bit more to get it done.

 

[Sanepar]

I think the deal is dead enough that most companies would have walked away by now. The objections are real and I think Microsoft still thinks this is some kind of theater where they just need to offer a small bit more to get it done.

What companies walked away?

 

[Three]

What companies walked away?

He's saying most companies would have. Not actual companies walked away.

 

[nikolino840]

 

[gothmog]

What companies walked away?

Plenty have over the years. I was working at TWC when they attempted to merge with Comcast. It was happening then it wasn't.

 

[Cheezewizz]

This isn't even the primary issue GP faces with these platforms. The issues MS has had with getting GP support onto the big 3 platforms they want to expand onto (Steam/PSN/Nintendo) is specifically around these items, as per knowledge i've heard on the matter:

Are you in a position to "hear" things regarding this matter? Your wording gives the impression that you have some sort of insider knowledge. Of course I could just be reading it wrong. Is that the case?

• Rev. Split for total amount of platform users who utilize said service (how much does PSN/Nintendo/Valve get per user who uses GP on their platform). Say I was subscribed to GP at $14.99 per month- how much of that 14.99 should the respective platform holder get if I use the service on their platform.
  • As an addendum to this, there is also contention around multi-platform users - how much does this revenue get further split if the user, say, plays on PS as a console, then switches over to Switch when on the go - does MS split the rev. split between both Sony and Nintendo, or do they base it off of how much total time the user spent in that month on which platform?
• In-game MTX sales - If a in-game sale occurs for a GP game, say you're buying some cosmetics in Halo Infinite: does that sale go through the Xbox or Windows store, or does it go through the specific platform holder's store?
  • Obviously, MS stands to make the most if all the in-game mtx was instead going through their store front. A lot of the fiscal fighting over this is also exactly what we saw play out with Apple regarding them allowing sales to bypass the App Store. For Sony/Nintendo, they also gain value from these transactions going through their store front in the form high increasing MAU and SW revenue, so for them, they are incentivized to make all of the in-game transactions go through their store front, but doing so means they also have to take on the costs associated with hosting that content, so they'd want the full 30% they normally get, and MS really doesn't want to pay that.
• GP-Only or non-GP native releases as well- very self-explanatory: will the games also be on offer in their respective platforms as a native client that a user can purchase and access without the need for GP. While Steam has already won this fight when it comes to getting MS support on their platform, with Sony and Nintendo, MS would vastly prefer to have their respective roll outs of GP have the games be GP exclusive in order to maximize the amount of users they could onboard; it would save them the 30% cut they'd have to hand out to the respective platform holder for the sale, while also ensuring they don't have to compete with each respective store's sale prices.
  • This also creates a conflict for the 2nd bullet point, because if the games are not being natively released, then that'd also mean that, in a case where Sony/Nintendo still are processing in-game mtx purchases, they need to host all of those items on their respective stores, without the one item that'd make them the most money: the full-game itself.

What MS was attempting to do with their market displacement strategy was to create as much leverage as they could to ensure they could get favorable terms on the above 3 items thanks to the audience they had hoped to capture with GP. Hasn't panned out so far but we'll see how things go should the ATVI deal go through and GP starts getting things like CoD.

 

[RickMasters]

Queen’s slaying.

She starting to grow on me. tell em how you feel, mama! No filter...Im like that in real life. Im only sensible here because there are mods.

 

[Three]

She starting to grow on me. tell em how you feel, mama! No filter...Im like that in real life. Im only sensible here because there are mods.

In real life the regulators are the mods.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

This isn't even the primary issue GP faces with these platforms. The issues MS has had with getting GP support onto the big 3 platforms they want to expand onto (Steam/PSN/Nintendo) is specifically around these items, as per knowledge i've heard on the matter:

• Rev. Split for total amount of platform users who utilize said service (how much does PSN/Nintendo/Valve get per user who uses GP on their platform). Say I was subscribed to GP at $14.99 per month- how much of that 14.99 should the respective platform holder get if I use the service on their platform.
  • As an addendum to this, there is also contention around multi-platform users - how much does this revenue get further split if the user, say, plays on PS as a console, then switches over to Switch when on the go - does MS split the rev. split between both Sony and Nintendo, or do they base it off of how much total time the user spent in that month on which platform?
• In-game MTX sales - If a in-game sale occurs for a GP game, say you're buying some cosmetics in Halo Infinite: does that sale go through the Xbox or Windows store, or does it go through the specific platform holder's store?
  • Obviously, MS stands to make the most if all the in-game mtx was instead going through their store front. A lot of the fiscal fighting over this is also exactly what we saw play out with Apple regarding them allowing sales to bypass the App Store. For Sony/Nintendo, they also gain value from these transactions going through their store front in the form high increasing MAU and SW revenue, so for them, they are incentivized to make all of the in-game transactions go through their store front, but doing so means they also have to take on the costs associated with hosting that content, so they'd want the full 30% they normally get, and MS really doesn't want to pay that.
• GP-Only or non-GP native releases as well- very self-explanatory: will the games also be on offer in their respective platforms as a native client that a user can purchase and access without the need for GP. While Steam has already won this fight when it comes to getting MS support on their platform, with Sony and Nintendo, MS would vastly prefer to have their respective roll outs of GP have the games be GP exclusive in order to maximize the amount of users they could onboard; it would save them the 30% cut they'd have to hand out to the respective platform holder for the sale, while also ensuring they don't have to compete with each respective store's sale prices.
  • This also creates a conflict for the 2nd bullet point, because if the games are not being natively released, then that'd also mean that, in a case where Sony/Nintendo still are processing in-game mtx purchases, they need to host all of those items on their respective stores, without the one item that'd make them the most money: the full-game itself.

What MS was attempting to do with their market displacement strategy was to create as much leverage as they could to ensure they could get favorable terms on the above 3 items thanks to the audience they had hoped to capture with GP. Hasn't panned out so far but we'll see how things go should the ATVI deal go through and GP starts getting things like CoD.

Is MS actually this desperate?

 

[SneakersSO]

I think the deal is dead enough that most companies would have walked away by now. The objections are real and I think Microsoft still thinks this is some kind of theater where they just need to offer a small bit more to get it done.

While I do agree that they have an uphill battle ahead, I know that unless they have finished submitting their remedies to the objecting groups and get a bad decision from any of them, they are still in this, thus MS is obligated to continue.

Are you in a position to "hear" things regarding this matter? Your wording gives the impression that you have some sort of insider knowledge. Of course I could just be reading it wrong. Is that the case?

This specific deal between ATVI and NS? No. Ive worked in and around the industry since 2011, and have learned loads of things from a variety of contacts and seen some of this stuff up close first hand though. Hearing about the terms fight over this stuff is something I have heard about though.

Is MS actually this desperate?

I wouldn't call the terms I outlined desperate. Its just jockeying for revenue growth on favorable terms for them. If MS starts accepting terms that are against their business plan just to facilitate growth in the short term, then their ability to renegotiate terms that are closer to what they need later on becomes near impossible to achieve.

Its important for them to establish a standard set of terms for GP integration now before it begins expanding. The first deal they sign to expand GP onto a platform they do not own will set the standard for all other platform integrations going forward.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Microsoft never did that.

Screenshot or it didn’t happen.

For anybody wondering what his previous deleted tweet said:

It mentioned xbox games and Activision title(s). Obviously they have no intention of doing that so he's deleted the old tweet and left just the Call of duty agreement image in the repost.

ManaByte - at least acknowledge it. It doesn't look good when people correct you and you ignore them but are still responding to other messages.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I wouldn't call the terms I outlined desperate. Its just jockeying for revenue growth on favorable terms for them. If MS starts accepting terms that are against their business plan just to facilitate growth in the short term, then their ability to renegotiate terms that are closer to what they need later on becomes near impossible to achieve.

Its important for them to establish a standard set of terms for GP integration now before it begins expanding. The first deal they sign to expand GP onto a platform they do not own will set the standard for all other platform integrations going forward.

is not necessarily the terms. but the position in which Xbox is.

I felt that during the Xbox One era, the Xbox division needed to justify their existence to MS, leading to the adoption of a Windows 8-like interface, Kinect integration, and a TV initiative. I recall an executive expecting for the Xbox One to sell 100 million consoles in North America alone.

Also, what have you been saying puts in perspective how precarious would be for Xbox to become just a publisher.

I think at this moment (even with the ABK acquisition approved) MS will not have a strong leverage at all, especially against Sony.

sure, they will increase their MAU and revenue, but i even question if MS knows how expensive, hard and time-consuming would be to gain the leverage needed to convince/force sony to put GP in their ecosystem.

 

[ManaByte]

ManaByte - at least acknowledge it. It doesn't look good when people correct you and you ignore them but are still responding to other messages.

I didn’t see the original Tweet. There.

 

[sainraja]

This isn't even the primary issue GP faces with these platforms. The issues MS has had with getting GP support onto the big 3 platforms they want to expand onto (Steam/PSN/Nintendo) is specifically around these items, as per knowledge i've heard on the matter:

• Rev. Split for total amount of platform users who utilize said service (how much does PSN/Nintendo/Valve get per user who uses GP on their platform). Say I was subscribed to GP at $14.99 per month- how much of that 14.99 should the respective platform holder get if I use the service on their platform.
  • As an addendum to this, there is also contention around multi-platform users - how much does this revenue get further split if the user, say, plays on PS as a console, then switches over to Switch when on the go - does MS split the rev. split between both Sony and Nintendo, or do they base it off of how much total time the user spent in that month on which platform?
• In-game MTX sales - If a in-game sale occurs for a GP game, say you're buying some cosmetics in Halo Infinite: does that sale go through the Xbox or Windows store, or does it go through the specific platform holder's store?
  • Obviously, MS stands to make the most if all the in-game mtx was instead going through their store front. A lot of the fiscal fighting over this is also exactly what we saw play out with Apple regarding them allowing sales to bypass the App Store. For Sony/Nintendo, they also gain value from these transactions going through their store front in the form high increasing MAU and SW revenue, so for them, they are incentivized to make all of the in-game transactions go through their store front, but doing so means they also have to take on the costs associated with hosting that content, so they'd want the full 30% they normally get, and MS really doesn't want to pay that.
• GP-Only or non-GP native releases as well- very self-explanatory: will the games also be on offer in their respective platforms as a native client that a user can purchase and access without the need for GP. While Steam has already won this fight when it comes to getting MS support on their platform, with Sony and Nintendo, MS would vastly prefer to have their respective roll outs of GP have the games be GP exclusive in order to maximize the amount of users they could onboard; it would save them the 30% cut they'd have to hand out to the respective platform holder for the sale, while also ensuring they don't have to compete with each respective store's sale prices.
  • This also creates a conflict for the 2nd bullet point, because if the games are not being natively released, then that'd also mean that, in a case where Sony/Nintendo still are processing in-game mtx purchases, they need to host all of those items on their respective stores, without the one item that'd make them the most money: the full-game itself.

What MS was attempting to do with their market displacement strategy was to create as much leverage as they could to ensure they could get favorable terms on the above 3 items thanks to the audience they had hoped to capture with GP. Hasn't panned out so far but we'll see how things go should the ATVI deal go through and GP starts getting things like CoD.

I suspected that...because if the goal was simply to put Game Pass on other platforms, they had easier routes to take.

 

[Heisenberg007]

is not necessarily the terms. but the position in which Xbox is.

I felt that during the Xbox One era, the Xbox division needed to justify their existence to MS, leading to the adoption of a Windows 8-like interface, Kinect integration, and a TV initiative. I recall an executive expecting for the Xbox One to sell 100 million consoles in North America alone.

Also, what have you been saying puts in perspective how precarious would be for Xbox to become just a publisher.

I think at this moment (even with the ABK acquisition approved) MS will not have a strong leverage at all, especially against Sony.

sure, they will increase their MAU and revenue, but i even question if MS knows how expensive, hard and time-consuming would be to gain the leverage needed to convince/force sony to put GP in their ecosystem.

The problem is that Xbox is a HW-first console platform business that acts like a third-party publisher SW-first business. That creates a ton of issues.

If Xbox does not have a HW platform (console), they can just copy-paste the EA model and put Game Pass (ala EA Play) on PlayStation, PC, and Nintendo. They try to balance both models (HW and SW) at the same time and, that's why, end up failing in both of them.

They will have to pick a lane for these problems to go away.

 

[pasterpl]

For anybody wondering what his previous deleted tweet said:

It mentioned xbox games and Activision title(s). Obviously they have no intention of doing that so he's deleted the old tweet and left just the Call of duty agreement image in the repost.

They also added a bit

if our acquisition of Activision Blizzard is approved by regulators.

For all these “intelligent” people that were asking if this is legal etc.

 

[ToadMan]

You kept suggesting that I don't have one because I couldn't get one

You couldn’t get a PS at launch… They sell out because they’re insanely popular.

You said it yourself

I haven't ever bought a Sony console at launch.

Sony made you wait huh?

 

[Cheezewizz]

This specific deal between ATVI and NS? No. Ive worked in and around the industry since 2011, and have learned loads of things from a variety of contacts and seen some of this stuff up close first hand though. Hearing about the terms fight over this stuff is something I have heard about though.

Fair enough. I don't have first hand knowledge of it either. However my better half most certainly does. It can be frustrating at times seeing what's claimed here, while knowing otherwise but it is what it is.
I showed the wife your post to see her reaction. "That's probably the best looking analysis you'll ever see about that specidic subject, but no... not at all. He should start an analytics firm, because that sounds far more reasonable than what most put out."

Take it as you will, but thought I'd pass it along as permission was granted via "if you turn out the lights". She'll find no freebies from me, and I did indeed turn out the lights. Now I'm off to bed, before my activities arouse further suspicion. Lol

 

[RickMasters]

Then why go so hard to have them sign an agreement if that’s been the case this whole time? To show the CMA they mean it? If so then why out a time limit on it?

Do they really think COD will close the GAP?

No?

They need that revenue and to recoup $70b for one IP is insane even when you think about the overhead involved going forward just to put this game on game pass for $10 or less in some cases is just insane!

I believe at that point that price increase is gonna show its face and subs start dropping! To me it’s not worth it when they could have gotten the same exclusive deals they normally give out!

Maybe the purchase of COD is not about closing a gap but revenue. As long as its on everthing else...along with the king stuff on mobile. Just deal with it like minecraft keep the money rolling. Im sure a pre increase to gamepass will happen eventually but I dont think its gonna be what some people on here think. Maybe Im just thinking a bit too tactical here but what I would do is introduce a new tier that includes monthly subs for WoW, starcraft, ESO, fallout, COD, overwatch and halo battle passes. thats what would sit above GPU.


They did a bundle recently called the hunters guild bundle, and It got me thinking about that. It had some overwatch stuff in it, along with skins or some other content for some other live service games. I think they could do a sub that includes these extras from ABK and bathesda and battle passes for halo, COD and overwatch......I could see GPU being 15-20 bucks and this new 'hunters guild' (I use this term because I got the idea from one of their bundles ons the series S) tier that doubles down on live service stuff becoming a thing. I could be wrong but who really knows?

Theres a lot of ways they could extract their money back out of this if they really thought about it. and theres a lot they could give for the money, that would increase GPs value. but I have no doubt we will see a tiered system and that next tier will be about games that require subs, themselves and battle passes. Not to mention the fact that all that money ABK makes on COD on other platforms. it will pay for itself. Its Not like they are making COD exclusive or anything of that sort.

Sure a price increase will come at some point but I dont think that wont come without an increase in content to reflect its new price... It Will still be cheaper than buying delux COD and a seasons battle pass...and If I was just a COD gamer...I suddenly get to play a bunch of stuff on gamepass. Im playing atomic hearts, hi fi rush and shadow warrior 3...alongside mooncrest (I love it! I dont care how anybody else feels about it) at a time when I have games like quantum break and elden ring in my backlog....... for ten bucks a month... if they put another 5 bucks on it add a game that I pay £120 for every year plus tony hawks and future ABK IP...plus whatever else they aquire, because we all know MS will aquire more studios even if they avoid aquiring publishers, that would sound good to me. there inhouse devs should be in full swing at some point too....I dont think thats bad, if it jumped 5 bucks , for example Im surprised gamepass is feasible at all to be honest, at its current price, for as long as its been running so far.


But then...who says physical and digital game prices wont go up another 10 bucks in the next three years? and then again a few years after? I never heard none of the game comapnies promise physcial and digital game prices wont go up again and im suprised nobody is considering this.... what happens when standard editions are £100 ..how many games is one buying and per year at that point vs how many of those same games a ganmepass user had access to for the cost of just one of them? ? and gamepass might have gone up to £150 a year and you get a third of those games released on the service that year...still works out as good value for what it is. people talk about a hypothetical price hike of GP but we have a very real price hike in the price of games happening right in front of us.....maybe the candle is burning at both ends as far the games industry goes, on the cost of things....How much is a single video game worth to you at that point? in terms of cost.... value per dollar, per hour etc? Ill be honest and say no game is worth 100 bucks but here i am paying that for COD every year for the sake of my freinds. destiny DLC for 80 bucks..... And I hate that we do this every year!

 

[pasterpl]

Played the game on PS3 bruv. Just haven't ever bought a Sony console at launch. Same is true for PS5 and now since there are already strong rumors of a slim or pro model coming, I'm good waiting until those happen. Everything I wanted to play from sony this past year, was available on my PS4 Pro.

I am the same, I usually buy upgraded (pro) version and grab all exclusives from bargain bin, then if something new comes out (exclusives only)I sometimes even pre-order (but will stop doing that after big disappointments with Ghosts of Tsushima and Death Stranding). All other games 3rd party - I play on Xbox/pc/steam deck. Got also switch with oled but this is only for couple of games (Zelda, Metroid etc.). In addition. This gen I might completely skip ps5, as I didn’t like most of their exclusives on ps4 and ps5 so far is sequel station (imo).

 

[RickMasters]

In real life the regulators are the mods.

yeah..them and the feds.

 

[SneakersSO]

Fair enough. I don't have first hand knowledge of it either. However my better half most certainly does. It can be frustrating at times seeing what's claimed here, while knowing otherwise but it is what it is.
I showed the wife your post to see her reaction. "That's probably the best looking analysis you'll ever see about that specidic subject, but no... not at all. He should start an analytics firm, because that sounds far more reasonable than what most put out."

Take it as you will, but thought I'd pass it along as permission was granted via "if you turn out the lights". She'll find no freebies from me, and I did indeed turn out the lights. Now I'm off to bed, before my activities arouse further suspicion. Lol

Thanks for the compliment I guess. I'm positive there are more factors in addition to what I outlined.

The place I learned about these negotiations from would have first hand knowledge of these discussions, albeit a touch outdated given their current circumstances.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

They also added a bit



For all these “intelligent” people that were asking if this is legal etc.

What people should understand is this guy has no knowledge of gaming. He has a general brief of what is going on, but I doubt he even wrote the tweet.

Microsoft sees gaming as big business and they want a big bite out of it, but ultimately their culture isn't gaming. Xbox is about 10% of its revenue and probably more than 10% of its operating costs.

This is a big swing to gain a chunk of market share across the board and really kickstart Game Pass. That's the reason you see him out there and not Spencer talking to regulators.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I didn’t see the original Tweet. There.

That's ok we all make mistakes. Thanks for owning it.

 

[b6a6es]

1) As for the $14.99 split on subs, Netflix's model isn't really applicable here. And as for even giving out a split, thats something you have to convince MS of - their entire model is run on a massive loss lead right now; convincing them to take what is meant to be their future profit margin and shred it down for platform holders when they are still in the growth phase is not something they wanna do (hence the displacement/leveraging tactics).

It’s their own fault, but I guarantee you most of the costs were associated with 3rd party day/date titles (especially if it’s 60$/70$),

In fact, lets not forget that Netflix started out the same way, and look where it is now, and it’s quite the standard across the industry

2) Console content going across devices is already a big point of contention with Sony, with most of the individual titles who do have this feature having to give Sony a compensating cut in order to allow it. So getting Sony on board for this is going to be difficult unless you come at it with a proper offer. It should be noted - most of the big players in the AAA space have already agreed to give Sony their cut for cross-progress support on the bigger titles, and Sony will do what it needs to do to defend their position on this. Its really not a big problem in isolation, but its yet another one of those margins MS was intending to make profit from once they hit their fabled scale-point, so again, not really a percentage they want to start dividing up at this turn.

This was an old issue that was fixed in 2019 (when they asked epic for a special cut), right now Sony allows the same cut across all platforms in similar ways to Nintendo/PC/mobile when it comes to cross platform titles, so I don’t know where the issue is here ?, especially when it’s (70/30) the standard

3) One of the points I didn't touch on here that is a factor is that, as we have now been made painfully aware: GP as a service has proven to lower the SW sales on the one (and only) console it has appeared on thus far. The worry with all 3 of those platform holders I listed is that, even with a MS-only GP, that it will still undervalue full price SW within their ecosystems and lead to lower SW sales. This is why, unless Game Pass grows into becoming a kingmaker service, that you will not see any of them fold on this until they get terms that are very agreeable on them on the 2 points above; they are not going to risk the overwhelming large value of their revenue streams for a potential service which will undermine it. And even in the event that GP *does* become a kingmaker service, unless the content delta is so large that what Sony/Nintendo offer in their sub services cannot ever possibly match what MS is offering, you likely see Nintendo and Sony opt to simply compete with their service and turn them into GP-like services instead of letting GP come in and impact their software revenue even further.

Being MS only titles would only hurt MS titles SW saleswise , it shouldn’t affect other games like how massive F2P games aren’t affecting other SW game sales

 

[aries_71]

What is the chance consoles hw will be relevant in 20 years?

Little chance in my opinion. All other entertainment industries went streaming, gaming is not going to be an exception. It’s not realistic to try to hope things continue to be as they were in the 1980s, things will change.

 

[Yoboman]

Little chance in my opinion. All other entertainment industries went streaming, gaming is not going to be an exception. It’s not realistic to try to hope things continue to be as they were in the 1980s, things will change.

No other medium has such an incredibly high bar for latency, and therefore so dependent on huge infrastructure leaps for streaming to become viable. Many would argue that it will always be worse because of limitations in physics. Our hand eye coordination is always going to be way faster than streaming can keep up with

That's why they are coming up with things like negative latency with AI to predict user inputs because the streaming tech just isn't going to get there.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Little chance in my opinion. All other entertainment industries went streaming, gaming is not going to be an exception. It’s not realistic to try to hope things continue to be as they were in the 1980s, things will change.

IF it was PlayStation or Epic making this argument to push streaming as the way to make the highest quality entertainment games then I would agree, but until those that are most successful by differentiating themselves by improving the production level of games through local hardware submit to production quality/fidelity has peaked - or failed to impress the buying audience as a differentiator - then local commodity console hardware will continue to be relevant with the added boost of latency is always less with local rendering making it essential for certain genres in the emerging eSports future.

 

[Yoboman]

One thing the streaming argument fails to consider is consumer behaviour

Streaming with music took off because music enthusiasts jumped right in, the type who were downloading huge music collections from torrents and Napster before Spotify came around

Its a similar story with Netflix, the hardcore movie buffs were the first to jump in.

The more casual audience comes after that with momentum built in from the hardcore consumer

Gaming is not comparable. The hardcore gamer will spend more on hardware for a better experience, and that type of customer is only increasing by the growth of PC gamers. The hardcore gamer has a huge library of legacy titles they've built up digitally over the past decade on their system of choice. Gamers are not struggling to find the content they want like music and movie fans were, and downloading is not considered a big barrier like it might have been a decade ago or with movies and music where you might have needed to go to illegal means.

Then you have the casual gamer who is really a separate audience on their mobile device. Might they download an app to play a streaming game? Possible but probably not going to be the bread and butter consumer you need for it to be viable

Gaming is not just a consumption medium either. It is skill based. It is somewhere between movies and an active hobby like playing music, playing a sport. There is a reason nobody is trying to stream playing sport or learning the guitar

I don't think both Google and Sony pulling streaming efforts is a coincidence. Shit, Google even had a fantastic vehicle for delivering it with the YouTube integrations and it didn't work

 

[IllegalLemon]

I know this isn't relevant in this specific discussion & if the mods find it irrelevant or platform war material, feel free to remove it and give me a warning if required.



I find it funny that our boy Timy here has used Vgchartz media, when Xbox was beating playstation in sales for almost 4 months, & yet when these charts flip around and show playstation demolishing xbox with an almost 3:1 ratio in sales, he can't seem to keep the same energy. What a hypocrite and shill. Nevermind the other guy he quoted, who was trashing xbox, he's just another platform warrior. I normally ignore console war stuff like this, but Tim's damage control is on another level. Xbox is doing amazingly well, yet some fanboys can't seem to accept it when their rival is outselling their favourite box.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I know this isn't relevant in this specific discussion & if the mods find it irrelevant or platform war material, feel free to remove it and give me a warning if required.



I find it funny that our boy Timy here has used Vgchartz media, when Xbox was beating playstation in sales for almost 4 months, & yet when these charts flip around and show playstation demolishing xbox with an almost 3:1 ratio in sales, he can't seem to keep the same energy. What a hypocrite and shill. Nevermind the other guy he quoted, who was trashing xbox, he's just another platform warrior. I normally ignore console war stuff like this, but Tim's damage control is on another level. Xbox is doing amazingly well, yet some fanboys can't seem to accept it when their rival is outselling their favourite box.

That looks really bad but it's VGcharts. Hopefully Microsoft gives us an update on whether or not the Series is tracking ahead of the XB1. I mean it should given they haven't made the same Don Mattrick level of mistakes with the systems.

 

[IllegalLemon]

That looks really bad but it's VGcharts. Hopefully Microsoft gives us an update on whether or not the Series is tracking ahead of the XB1. I mean it should given they haven't made the same Don Mattrick level of mistakes with the systems.

They should, it's a matter of when. But when they're so tight lipped about the sales of their system, it's not really sn encouraging sign. Hopefully it's doing well.

 

[aries_71]

IF it was PlayStation or Epic making this argument to push streaming as the way to make the highest quality entertainment games then I would agree, but until those that are most successful by differentiating themselves by improving the production level of games through local hardware submit to production quality/fidelity has peaked - or failed to impress the buying audience as a differentiator - then local commodity console hardware will continue to be relevant with the added boost of latency is always less with local rendering making it essential for certain genres in the emerging eSports future.

Nahh… we are talking of the general public here. The millions of casual gamers don’t care or even know what production levels or latency are. Most console players don‘t even know that their tvs have low latency modes and play with interpolation modes designed for movie watching. They will play the future FIFAs and CODs streamed from their Smart TVs, tablets and phones. Marketing campaigns and easy availability will drive them there. They won’t spend years to get a new console out of a scalper, they will fire up the equivalent to GeforceNow or xCloud from their Samsung TV and go. The super specialist fan that cares or knows about such things will have to revert to advanced PC hardware… if, and only if, software would still be locally installable by 2045.

 

[MasterCornholio]

They should, it's a matter of when. But when they're so tight lipped about the sales of their system, it's not really sn encouraging sign. Hopefully it's doing well.

Well I agree with you there. With Microsoft not giving us the numbers it's really difficult to determine how the Series sold. All we have at the moment are estimates. Unlike Sony and Nintendo where they give us the actual systems sold.

 

[DenchDeckard]

She starting to grow on me. tell em how you feel, mama! No filter...Im like that in real life. Im only sensible here because there are mods.

Get a few drinks in her on a night out and I bet she's wild!

 

[reksveks]

I would argue that the hardcore music and movie buffs were making similar arguments (bit rates) about streaming services that gamers were/are making about streaming services.

I do think it's largely about the definitions of enthusiasts audiences. Is that based on consumptions or investment?

I think cloud streaming hasn't had a killer app and/or proven its value to the mass market yet.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I would argue that the hardcore music and movie buffs were making similar arguments (bit rates) about streaming services that gamers were/are making about streaming services.

I do think it's largely about the definitions of enthusiasts audiences. Is that based on consumptions or investment?

I think cloud streaming hasn't had a killer app and/or proven its value to the mass market yet.

Streaming killed physical media but that's because you just sit there and watch or listen to movies and music.

Gaming is interactive and no one can solve the problem of Internet lag which ruins the interactive aspect of gaming in fundamental ways. Since it's not possible to exceed the speed of light with our current level of technology, cloud gaming will always be limited to very casual games. Unfortunately, mobile controls the casual games market.

Traditional gamers have avoided cloud services for a very good reason.

 

[Heisenberg007]

That looks really bad but it's VGcharts. Hopefully Microsoft gives us an update on whether or not the Series is tracking ahead of the XB1. I mean it should given they haven't made the same Don Mattrick level of mistakes with the systems.

It's pretty much confirmed that Xbox Series is now tracking behind Xbox One. We'll never get an update from Microsoft because the headline would read "Xbox Series Consoles are now pacing behind Xbox One, says Microsoft." No company would put out a statement like this, ever.

There's enough data to say with great confidence that XBS is now behind Xbox One. In case, you need more information/data, feel free to let me know.

---

Also, I believe this VGChartz data is severely under-tracking PlayStation. Sony recently increased its forecast (shows they're confident) for selling 6.2 million consoles this quarter. That means Sony would be selling 2.06 million consoles every month.

This chart shows that they only sold 1.25 million, which means they're lagging behind by ~40%. If that were the case, they would not increase their forecast from 5.2 million to 6.2 million.

VGChartz is under-tracking PS5s roughly by 800,000 units in this chart.

 

[adamsapple]

What’s the next crucial date/decision?

When does the CMA respond to MS’s remedies?

Oral hearings in London near the end of the month. Probably no news about remedies or what happened until those are done.

 

[adamsapple]

nooooo not ass