Support NeoGAF

[FoxMcChief]

I don't think you received the updated Spencer memo, F2P is the future now.

Most F2P offer subscriptions.

 

[DenchDeckard]

How many multi-studio publishers have Playstation purchased in their 25 year history?

And if you are referring to exclusivity deals — partnerships and exclusivity are among the most commonly used business strategies, you goober. I guarantee that Atari engaged in these practices; Nintendo sure as hell has. Practically every brand around you is negotiating better terms in an attempt to make their product more attractive, increase profitability and retain customers.

It’s laughable that you and so many other green rats are trying to white knight Microsoft after their history of anti-competitive, monopolistic practices.

I love that you called me a goober so I concede defeat!

I'm not trying to white knight microsoft at all. I'm just calling out Jimbo.

At the end of the day, I honestly...and I mean honestly couldnt care which way this deal goes. I want it to be scrutinized properly and if these bodies think that its ok to go through, it's ok to go through. If it isnt, it isnt and let MS get to putting out good games in other ways.

We know they will have 70billion free if this doesnt go through so they can go out and sign up some deals, and no matter what it is no, no one can complain again like the Tomb Raider situation. I am sure everyone will accept it now.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Most F2P offer subscriptions.

I'm not trying to white knight microsoft at all. I'm just calling out Jimbo.

See you and phil_t98 in the next Phil Spencer says used car salesmen shit again thread holding his feet to the fire?

Because the post histories say otherwise when it comes to Spencer.

 

[MasterCornholio]

We are going in circles, or I feel I am each month lol but we have seen evidence that Sony has contracts in place to stop games coming to gamepass etc. So we can't just simply say. MS can make deals. We don't know how easy it is for MS to make deals over Sony or to navigate a market with a clear leader who holds a lot of weight.

That's why we need fair competition.

Thats what 3rd parties are for so they can make deals with them. Microsoft clearly has the cash to do so. If cash isn't working maybe Microsoft can try and find out why 3rd parties want to make the deals with Sony for less money.

 

[DarkMage619]

On the flip side a whole lot of people don’t understand that you don’t stop a monopoly after the fact which is why regulators are trying to stop monopolistic moves before the fact.

After AB almost every big IP from Xbox will have been bought, not produced in house. They have consistently bought revenue, an MS special.

What people don't realize is that US companies don't get approval for mergers they are simply allowed to happen. If MS breaks it's commitments and suddenly turns into a gaming monopoly the FTC can force them to unwind acquisitions and reverse the monopolistic practices.

It's still a major stretch seeing how MS is currently 3rd in gaming right now and this acquisition won't make them a monopoly anyway. Still amazing to see people more concerned about what might happen than what has actually happened with other companies.

 

[MasterCornholio]

I love that you called me a goober so I concede defeat!

I'm not trying to white knight microsoft at all. I'm just calling out Jimbo.

At the end of the day, I honestly...and I mean honestly couldnt care which way this deal goes. I want it to be scrutinized properly and if these bodies think that its ok to go through, it's ok to go through. If it isnt, it isnt and let MS get to putting out good games in other ways.

We know they will have 70billion free if this doesnt go through so they can go out and sign up some deals, and no matter what it is no, no one can complain again like the Tomb Raider situation. I am sure everyone will accept it now.

People don't have to accept it but Tomb Raider came to PlayStation in the end. Just like the Medium did and the same will go for Silent Hill 2.

 

[Swift_Star]

It's still a major stretch seeing how MS is currently 3rd in gaming right now and this acquisition won't make them a monopoly anyway. Still amazing to see people more concerned about what might happen than what has actually happened with other companies.

That's the thing you don't get: It's not going to become a monopoly NOW but it's on its way to. You stop companies of becoming a monopoly if you see this threat and it's pretty clear the threat exists and that this is MS main objective.

 

[Eddie-Griffin]

Here you go:



Sony has had 4 more acquisitions than Microsoft (I'm not including the Acitivision Blizzard acquisition since it hasn't gone through yet), but Microsoft's total studios acquired are larger than Sony's even without Acitivision Blizzard. Microsoft's issue isn't having the studios and/or talent. Their issue is that they don't know how to manage their acquisitions. They assume that everything can be resolved by just throwing more money at the problem, and that's a terrible way to manage this business.

Microsoft isn't playing catch up because they lacked studios or talent. They're playing catch up because they keep getting to the end zone and then fumbling the ball. They have had every chance to dominate in the gaming space, but they end up blowing it. You can't look at these two acquisition lists (even without the Activision Blizzard acquisition) and say that Microsoft is simply needing to level the playing field with the Activision Blizzard acquisition.

They haven't had a new studio release a major release since their acquisitions yet, so how can you possibly be suggesting they fumbled at the goal line when the goal line is delayed until 2023?

 

[Topher]

You can't outbid contractual agreements that are already in place but I do agree with you, MS should be able to do some stuff with games that arent locked in with Sony already.

Microsoft owned the marketing rights to Call of Duty before Sony. Don't tell me they couldn't outbid Sony and still have the contract right now. And don't tell me Microsoft could have outbid Sony for every marketing deal they own.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft owned the marketing rights to Call of Duty before Sony. Don't tell me they couldn't outbid Sony and still have the contract right now. And don't tell me Microsoft could have outbid Sony for every marketing deal they own.

Maybe Microsoft wanted to games on gamepass day one and those publishers didn't want that?

Just trying to think if why they would go with Sony instead of Microsoft for reasons other than money paid for a marketing deal.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Microsoft owned the marketing rights to Call of Duty before Sony. Don't tell me they couldn't outbid Sony and still have the contract right now. And don't tell me Microsoft could have outbid Sony for every marketing deal they own.

They stopped the bid war because they wanted to focus on the outright permanent purchase. It wasn't because they couldn't, that's just a false narrative to try and paint MS as a the little ole poor victim of the 1/13th+ the size in market cap of Sony. MS changed focus to contracting the market and a race to the bottom (subs) in their evolution of EEE.

 

[Topher]

Maybe Microsoft wanted to games on gamepass day one and those publishers didn't want that?

Just trying to think if why they would go with Sony instead of Microsoft for reasons other than money paid for a marketing deal.

Microsoft has the marketing deal for Cyberpunk 2077 and it has never been on Game Pass.

How Microsoft scored that deal in a world where Sony exists, I have no idea. /s

 

[DeepEnigma]

Maybe Microsoft wanted to games on gamepass day one and those publishers didn't want that?

Just trying to think if why they would go with Sony instead of Microsoft for reasons other than money paid for a marketing deal.

Microsoft has the marketing deal for Cyberpunk 2077 and it has never been on Game Pass.

How Microsoft scored that deal in a world where Sony exists, I have no idea. /s

Not everyone wants to be Day 1 on Game Pass, no matter the Kool Aid being spun by the fanbase. Companies still like their revenue and profits on return in sales.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Microsoft has the marketing deal for Cyberpunk 2077 and it has never been on Game Pass.

How Microsoft scored that deal in a world where Sony exists, I have no idea. /s

Yeah Microsoft would always be able to outbid Sony no matter the situation. Either they are not offering what 3rd parties want or 3rd parties are not willing to make those deals due to other reasons.

 

[phil_t98]

See you and phil_t98 in the next Phil Spencer says used car salesmen shit again thread holding his feet to the fire?

Because the post histories say otherwise when it comes to Spencer.

but you just said you don't go in xbox threads lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

but you just said you don't go in xbox threads lol

I only do when something asinine is said (in which I said). Your average thread, I don't. It's a once in a blue moon thing. Post histories can be seen without venturing into a thread.

It's okay to like something more than another, we all do it. Just don't try and fool everyone with "impartiality," that annoys people more so.

 

[Victor Omega]

With all these Xbox mega threads, Microsoft should buy GAF. see jimo is right

 

[phil_t98]

So? Regulators should do something about it, doesn’t mean they should let MS do whatever they want. This is whataboutism at its finest.

It’s about Jim Ryan saying Microsoft dominate industries and there is an example of Sony doing the same in the music industry. They have been allowed to do it there, not saying Microsoft should be allowed to dominate the industry but Sony are calling Microsoft out in their own practices.

The Activision deal is right to be investigated I agree. So let’s see what the outcome is

 

[proandrad]

It’s idiotic this is turning into console war bs. Anytime a mega corporation buys another mega corporation it’s the the consumer that loses in the long run. Microsoft isn’t a charity, they have a history of monopolies and ripping off customers once they control a market. And yes Sony is also bad… stop cheer leading corporations.

 

[skit_data]

The important question here is:

Would Jim Ryan get warnings from Neogaf mods for console warring and make a ridiculous account suicide thread?

 

[ahtlas7]

Hey Jim, shouldn’t you be remaking a TLOU.

 

[GHG]

It isn't exactly what they do, though. And when they do it isn't any different than what any large company does. Microsoft didn't start as the largest software company in the world. They built technology that led to their initial success. They've purchased to diversify and supplement their business, but they haven't stopped creating. They spend multiple billions on R&D every year.

Sony's story isn't all that different. They've built technology and they've bought it. When it comes to video games they had to purchase a large portion of the creative talent that has made them successful. More businesses buy other businesses to grow and expand than you seem to be willing to admit.

You're pushing a one-sided reality and I really don't understand why. Sony has its own history of trying to use its market power to dominate industries. Nintendo tried it as well.

At this point I'm convinced anyone taking similar stances to this are doing so in bad faith.

One company has a history of monopolistic behaviour and antitrust lawsuits while the other has failed to appropriately capitalise during times of market dominance (as domumented across the more recent pages of this thread). It doesn't take a genius to work out which company represents a bigger threat to the industry and competition in general if left unchecked.

It's literally in Microsoft's DNA, it's their go-to approach when their back is up against the wall, all ways has been and always will be. That is the assumption upon which their competitors view them under and similarly so do regulators, and wisely so.

Does that mean Sony (and Nintendo since you mentioned them) are perfect? No. That is not and has never been my argument. But one only has to look at the scale of the acquisitions from these respective companies and the subsequent outcomes/impacts on their respective industries and competitors to see what is what.

That is why what Jim Ryan is saying in the title of this thread true. Is it laced with hypocrisy given some of Sony's more recent moves? Yes, but it doesn't make it any less true.

 

[ReBurn]

Microsoft's "initial success" was built entirely from buying QDOS from Tim Patterson and then licensing it to IBM.

That's also an oversimplification.

Microsoft was founded years before QDOS existed. Their initial success as Microsoft came from working with MITS to create a BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800. They subsequently developed a BASIC interpreter for the new 8086 chip before an operating system even existed for it. Their BASIC interpreter was the first commercially available software for the chip.

Tim Paterson worked for Seattle Computer Products, a memory board manufacturer. Paterson convinced SCP to build a computer board around the 8086. SCP developed the board but there was no operating system for it.

Without an OS SCP couldn't sell their computer boards so based on technical documentation Paterson quickly created a clone of Digital Research's CP/M for the 8088/Z80 to run on the 8086 chip. Microsoft, who had entered into a contract with IBM to create a CP/M clone for the 8086 bought that "quick and dirty" version from SCP, which in received royalty-free licensing for use in their computer systems in return. Microsoft then hired Tim Paterson from SCP to continue to work on software.

Clearly Microsoft has built loads of their own original software and services. For anyone to suggest that they haven't is being completely disingenuous. I'm not saying you are, but I am saying that the arguments a few others are making are based on inaccurate perspectives that purposefully ignore reality to form a narrative. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The truth doesn't really change.

 

[Swift_Star]

It’s about Jim Ryan saying Microsoft dominate industries and there is an example of Sony doing the same in the music industry. They have been allowed to do it there, not saying Microsoft should be allowed to dominate the industry but Sony are calling Microsoft out in their own practices.

The Activision deal is right to be investigated I agree. So let’s see what the outcome is

So? Those things aren't related. It's not the same industry. It's not the same business strategy. Consumers of both industries behave differently. Those things are utterly unrelated and you're grasping at straws because all of your points failed. Stop with this weak whataboutism.

 

[Topher]

That's also an oversimplification.

Microsoft was founded years before QDOS existed. Their initial success as Microsoft came from working with MITS to create a BASIC interpreter for the Altair 8800. They subsequently developed a BASIC interpreter for the new 8086 chip before an operating system even existed for it. Their BASIC interpreter was the first commercially available software for the chip.

Tim Paterson worked for Seattle Computer Products, a memory board manufacturer. Paterson convinced SCP to build a computer board around the 8086. SCP developed the board but there was no operating system for it.

Without an OS SCP couldn't sell their computer boards so based on technical documentation Paterson quickly created a clone of Digital Research's CP/M for the 8088/Z80 to run on the 8086 chip. Microsoft, who had entered into a contract with IBM to create a CP/M clone for the 8086 bought that "quick and dirty" version from SCP, which in received royalty-free licensing for use in their computer systems in return. Microsoft then hired Tim Paterson from SCP to continue to work on software.

Clearly Microsoft has built loads of their own original software and services. For anyone to suggest that they haven't is being completely disingenuous. I'm not saying you are, but I am saying that the arguments a few others are making are based on inaccurate perspectives that purposefully ignore reality to form a narrative. Ultimately it doesn't matter. The truth doesn't really change.

Yeah, I know the history quite well and I'm not sure what part of what I said is an oversimplification, frankly. I didn't say Microsoft didn't exist before QDOS. I said purchasing QDOS is what led to Microsoft's initial success. No, I'm not talking about Microsoft the fledgling company working on applications on various platforms like Altair and Apple. QDOS become MS-DOS and put Microsoft into the dominant position that led to Windows.....and all the rest. That purchase was the key point in Microsoft's history.

 

[hemo memo]

Throwing stones and crying about your glass home? Really Jim?

 

[ReBurn]

At this point I'm convinced anyone taking similar stances to this are doing so in bad faith.

One company has a history of monopolistic behaviour and antitrust lawsuits while the other has failed to appropriately capitalise during times of market dominance (as domumented across the more recent pages of this thread). It doesn't take a genius to work out which company represents a bigger threat to the industry and competition in general if left unchecked.

It's literally in Microsoft's DNA, it's their go-to approach when their back is up against the wall, all ways has been and always will be. That is the assumption upon which their competitors view them under and similarly so do regulators, and wisely so.

Does that mean Sony (and Nintendo since you mentioned them) are perfect? No. That is not and has never been my argument. But one only has to look at the scale of the acquisitions from these respective companies and the subsequent outcomes/impacts on their respective industries and competitors to see what is what.

That is why what Jim Ryan is saying in the title of this thread true. Is it laced with hypocrisy given some of Sony's more recent moves? Yes, but it doesn't make it any less true.

So now you get to moderate perspectives in this discussion? I wasn't aware that you get to decide what's in good faith and what isn't. If disagreeing with your argument is the definition of bad faith then I wasn't aware so I apologize.

You're the one who made the insinuation that Microsoft only builds their business by purchasing it while "other" companies built theirs through creativity. I pointed out that the greater part of Sony's success in video games has been through buying talent and technology, so they really aren't that different of a company.

When I challenged your assertion that the other companies that aren't Microsoft built their businesses through acquisition you flipped from creativity to "well look at the scale of their acquisitions" as your main point. If you want to move the goal posts that's fine. But please don't personally attack me as someone who argues in bad faith just because I pointed out that your argument wasn't based on the empirical evidence available to everyone.

 

[ReBurn]

Yeah, I know the history quite well and I'm not sure what part of what I said is an oversimplification, frankly. I didn't say Microsoft didn't exist before QDOS. I said purchasing QDOS is what led to Microsoft's initial success. No, I'm not talking about Microsoft the fledgling company working on applications on various platforms like Altair and Apple. QDOS become MS-DOS and put Microsoft into the dominant position that led to Windows.....and all the rest. That purchase was the key point in Microsoft's history.

That purchase is interesting because it actually started out as a marketing deal. SCP ultimately didn't want to be in the software business.

 

[Topher]

That purchase is interesting because it actually started out as a marketing deal. SCP ultimately didn't want to be in the software business.

It is an interesting story because Bill Gates had actually told IBM that they didn't have an OS and they referred them to Gary Kildall at DR. Kildall supposedly blew off the deal and left his wife to talk to IBM and she did not want to sign any NDAs. IBM came back to Gates who then turned to Patterson.

 

[GHG]

So now you get to moderate perspectives in this discussion? I wasn't aware that you get to decide what's in good faith and what isn't. If disagreeing with your argument is the definition of bad faith then I wasn't aware so I apologize.

You're the one who made the insinuation that Microsoft only builds their business by purchasing it while "other" companies built theirs through creativity. I pointed out that the greater part of Sony's success in video games has been through buying talent and technology, so they really aren't that different of a company.

When I challenged your assertion that the other companies that aren't Microsoft built their businesses through you flipped from creativity to "well look at the scale of their acquisitions" as your main point. If you want to move the goal posts that's fine. But please don't personally attack me as someone who argues in bad faith just because I pointed out that your argument wasn't based on the empirical evidence available to everyone.

It's not a personal attack to say you're arguing in bad faith. Considering you're willing to sit there and say Microsoft and Sony are the same, both in their histories and approaches to acquisitions then I'd say that's pretty much on the money. Either that or you are unable to accurately interpret the evidence widely available to everyone.

And as I told you initially, read my subsequent posts in this thread after the one you decided to initially latch on to. You can claim moving goalposts and that I've "flipped" all you want but if you'd have actually taken the time to do as I requested instead of just jumping in mid conversation you would see that isn't the case. Of course you need to look at the scale of the acquisitions, if not for that this discussion doesn't happen at all.

 

[phil_t98]

So? Those things aren't related. It's not the same industry. It's not the same business strategy. Consumers of both industries behave differently. Those things are utterly unrelated and you're grasping at straws because all of your points failed. Stop with this weak whataboutism.

Again jim is calling out Microsoft for practices outside of the gaming industry, that are not related to the activision deal.

 

[Gavon West]

It's nothing like the same you clown. Sony don't own FF. Nothing stopping MS negotiating with SE or any other publisher for games.

Just like there's nothing stopping Sony from buying AKB....except brokeness.

 

[sono]

Tell them straight Jim

 

[Stooky]

So now you get to moderate perspectives in this discussion? I wasn't aware that you get to decide what's in good faith and what isn't. If disagreeing with your argument is the definition of bad faith then I wasn't aware so I apologize.

You're the one who made the insinuation that Microsoft only builds their business by purchasing it while "other" companies built theirs through creativity. I pointed out that the greater part of Sony's success in video games has been through buying talent and technology, so they really aren't that different of a company.

When I challenged your assertion that the other companies that aren't Microsoft built their businesses through acquisition you flipped from creativity to "well look at the scale of their acquisitions" as your main point. If you want to move the goal posts that's fine. But please don't personally attack me as someone who argues in bad faith just because I pointed out that your argument wasn't based on the empirical evidence available to everyone.

Majority of Sony's studio purchases have been with teams they have worked with and or supported, funded their games for years, look at recent additions of bluepoint, insomniac etc. Microsoft is kinda just buying studios and publishers. There is a difference of buying strategy there.

 

[sinnergy]

All these colored opinions

 

[Swift_Star]

Just like there's nothing stopping Sony from buying AKB....except brokeness.

And then you all complain when we call you people out about arguing in bad faith...

 

[SSfox]

Thats what 3rd parties are for so they can make deals with them. Microsoft clearly has the cash to do so. If cash isn't working maybe Microsoft can try and find out why 3rd parties want to make the deals with Sony for less money.

The thing is, t's hard for MS to make deals with 3rd party at that scale tho (CF. exclusives to their consoles, even for timed around 1 o 2 years). That's why they're buying all those big publishers.

The main reason Sony can lock 3rd exclusives like FF is because those already sells mostly on PS. I bet you there is no way SE would have accepted to make FF16 PS exclusive if sales were 50/50 or 60/40 for PS and Xbox. You won't see Sony have Resident Evil ou Mortal Kombat exclusive cause those are franchise that sells decently on Xbox as well (i think for MK11 it was like 30% or 35% for Xbox), in those scenario Sony make other type of deals like timed exclusive Demos and cie.

There is only some special cases like SFV as SF4 did very well on Xbox, when Capcom didn't have the budget to make SFV after the huge fail of SF x Tekken. But you can't just go and lock a 3rd party exclusive of game from a franchise that has half fanbase or even more on the other plateforme.

 

[MasterCornholio]

The thing is, t's hard for MS to make deals with 3rd party at that scale tho (CF. exclusives to their consoles, even for timed around 1 o 2 years). That's why they're buying all those big publishers.

The main reason Sony can lock 3rd exclusives like FF is because those already sells mostly on PS. I bet you there is no way SE would have accepted to make FF16 PS exclusive if sales were 50/50 or 60/40 for PS and Xbox. You won't see Sony have Resident Evil ou Mortal Kombat exclusive cause those are franchise that sells decently on Xbox as well (i think for MK11 it was like 30% or 35% for Xbox), in those scenario Sony make other type of deals like timed exclusive Demos and cie.

There is only some special cases like SFV as SF4 did very well on Xbox, when Capcom didn't have the budget to make SFV after the huge fail of SF x Tekken. But you can't just go and lock a 3rd party exclusive of game from a franchise that has half fanbase or even more on the other plateforme.

Situations like FF are pretty rare though. Some types of games just don't sell well on Xbox. However most of them do well enough that those deals can't be made. That's what having a strong competitor is able to do. If the competition was extremely weak many more games would be exclusive to the rival platform. But even in thst situation many publishers will still release games on the other platform if it still makes financial sense.

 

[SLB1904]

Just like there's nothing stopping Sony from buying AKB....except brokeness.

There is nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing great games... except lack of talent.

 

[MasterCornholio]

All these colored opinions

There is nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing great games... except lack of talent.

And soony

 

[MasterCornholio]

Dbl post

 

[SSfox]

Situations like FF are pretty rare though. Some types of games just don't sell well on Xbox. However most of them do well enough that those deals can't be made. That's what having a strong competitor is able to do. If the competition was extremely weak many more games would be exclusive to the rival platform. But even in thst situation many publishers will still release games on the other platform if it still makes financial sense.

Yup, and that's why you don't see as many 3rd party PS exclusive as in the PS2 era, same for Nier, Persona DQ etc. And even in those cases it's timed exclusives mostly.

 

[SmurfMustard]

So much anger, so much name calling (looking at you John Wick ) . One could think people are very worried the outcome of the ABK deal will not be what they are hoping for. Looking at the post count in this thread of some posters makes this thread seem more like a grief group.
It'll be okay.

 

[MasterCornholio]

Yup, and that's why you don't see as many 3rd party PS exclusive as in the PS2 era, same for Nier, Persona DQ etc. And even in those cases it's timed exclusives mostly.

Yes competition has been getting better between the two not worse. Some act like Sony controls the market but that really isn't the case. By excluding the other platform devs are leaving a lot of money on the table. It would cost Sony an arm and a leg to make those types of deals with titles that are popular on the other platform. Thankfully for those people Sony doesn't have a huge financial backing.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Thats what 3rd parties are for so they can make deals with them. Microsoft clearly has the cash to do so. If cash isn't working maybe Microsoft can try and find out why 3rd parties want to make the deals with Sony for less money.

This is pretty easy, when the other platform is dominant it costs more because they sit down and guess how many units they don't sell because there is no PS version... Then they give a price.

On the other hand, if they don't make an xbox version it may not be as substantial (and the backlash smaller because there are less people loosing access to the game).

Maybe Ms has different conditions in their deal as well, this may make them "more expensive".

 

[MasterCornholio]

This is pretty easy, when the other platform is dominant it costs more because they sit down and guess how many units they don't sell because there is no PS version... Then they give a price.

On the other hand, if they don't make an xbox version it may not be as substantial (and the backlash smaller because there are less people loosing access to the game).

Maybe Ms has different conditions in their deal as well, this may make them "more expensive".

I believe multiplats do well enough on Xbox where making them permanent exclusives would be very expensive for Sony. Its why we don't really see a ton of them happening. I guess it's easier with smaller titles or titles that don't do well on the other platform.

 

[Tefl0n]

Now I hope Microsoft gets the no restrictions green light

 

[Swift_Star]

There is nothing stopping Microsoft from releasing great games... except lack of talent.

You didn't need to be so harsh... poor guy...

 

[PharaoTutAnchAmun]

It’s about Jim Ryan saying Microsoft dominate industries and there is an example of Sony doing the same in the music industry. They have been allowed to do it there, not saying Microsoft should be allowed to dominate the industry but Sony are calling Microsoft out in their own practices.

The Activision deal is right to be investigated I agree. So let’s see what the outcome is

Cous Sony worked hard to get a foothole in the musicindustry, they build it al by them self. MS is not building the xboxportifolio even not in 25 years. they had changes enough. But now that they could not deliver enough first party games they'r solution is to buy complete publishers and they said they want to buy even more if the deal goes trough?

And i dont get the xboxfans, all the games from all does publishers where coming to Xbox anyway.
All does games, without ore with the deal of buying al does publishers.
You guys would lose nothing and now your winning nothing.
Whats your problem?

 

[GHG]

What people don't realize is that US companies don't get approval for mergers they are simply allowed to happen. If MS breaks it's commitments and suddenly turns into a gaming monopoly the FTC can force them to unwind acquisitions and reverse the monopolistic practices.

Is this really where we are at now? Let Microsoft break the industry and then force them to unwind after the fact?

Really?

How about it would be better to ensure they don't fuck the industry up in the first place?

This is how I know some of you really don't give a shit.