• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Microsoft quietly told Apple it was willing to turn big Xbox-exclusive games into iPhone apps.

reksveks

Member
Article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/9/...loud-streaming-exclusives-iphone-ipad-gamepas

Remember when Apple pretended like it would let cloud gaming services like Microsoft xCloud and Google Stadia into the App Store, while effectively tearing their business models to shreds? Know how Microsoft replied that forcing gamers to download hundreds of individual apps to play a catalog of cloud games would be a bad experience?

In reality, Microsoft was willing to play along with many of Apple’s demands — and it even offered to bring triple-A, Xbox-exclusive games to iPhone to help sweeten the deal. That’s according to a new set of private emails that The Verge unearthed in the aftermath of the Epic v. Apple trial.

These games would have run on Microsoft’s Xbox Cloud Gaming (xCloud) platform, streaming from remote server farms filled with Xbox One and Xbox Series X processors instead of relying on the local processing power of your phone. If the deal had been made, you could have theoretically bought a copy of a game like Halo Infinite in Apple’s App Store itself and launched it like any other app — instead of having to pay $14.99 a month for an Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription with a set catalog of games and then needing to use Microsoft’s web-based App Store workaround.

But primarily, Microsoft was negotiating to bring its Netflix-esque catalog of xCloud games to the App Store, at a time when Apple had gotten very touchy about cloud gaming in general.

But by March of last year, Microsoft was proposing that it could, actually, create those hundreds or thousands of individual apps to submit to the App Store — as long as it could make those apps a bit more like shortcuts, instead of stuffing the whole cloud gaming streaming stack into each one. She argued that’s similar to how watchOS apps already worked.

“If we have a single streaming tech app, it will be around 150 MB, but the other apps will only be roughly 30 MB and will not need to be updated when the streaming tech is updated. This will be a better experience for users,” Wright wrote:

Where did negotiations break down? Microsoft now tells The Verge that Apple was actually the one that rejected its proposals — because Apple insisted on forcing each and every game to include the full streaming stack and wouldn’t agree to anything else.

“Our proposal for bringing games through individual apps was designed to comply with App Store policies. It was denied by Apple based on our request that there be a single streaming tech app to support the individual game apps, as the initial email states. Forcing each game to include our streaming tech stack proved to be unrealistic from a support and engineering perspective and would create an incredibly negative experience for customers,” reads a statement from Xbox Cloud Gaming CVP Kareem Choudhry to The Verge.

And Apple tells The Verge that money was indeed involved. “Unfortunately, Microsoft proposed a version of xCloud that was not compliant with our App Store Review Guidelines, specifically the requirement to use in-app purchase to unlock additional features or functionality within an app,” reads a statement via Apple spokesperson Adam Dema.

Microsoft’s Choudhry denies that IAP came into the final decision. “The reasons for rejection were unrelated to in-app purchase capabilities; we currently provide Xbox Cloud Gaming through a singular Xbox Game Pass app in the Google Play Store without IAP enabled, for example, and we would do the same through the App Store if allowed.”

Missed this personally whilst being offline but thought it was interesting news
 

Ozriel

Member
They were going to make streaming apps for iPhone for their big budget exclusives. Similar to how game streaming works on Switch. XCloud as the backend.

Apple doesn’t want competition for their Arcade service, so they turned it down under the guise of ‘protecting their users’.

I hope we get some court judgement or legislation someday to force Apple to be more open.
 

aries_71

Junior Member
Is it possible to use xcloud from iPhone nowadays? I know for a fact that GeForce Now and Stadia do work.
 

Dream-Knife

Member
They were going to make streaming apps for iPhone for their big budget exclusives. Similar to how game streaming works on Switch. XCloud as the backend.

Apple doesn’t want competition for their Arcade service, so they turned it down under the guise of ‘protecting their users’.

I hope we get some court judgement or legislation someday to force Apple to be more open.
If our government wasn't owned by special interests I suspect MS, Apple, Google, etc would have all been broken up by now.
 
Last edited:
Microsoft is "all in" on hardware sales as well. Regardless, their stock is sold out or near sold out consistently so why would they be "crying their eyes out" either way?
Of course they want to sell some hardware to get even more subcribers, but their strategy and long term business plan is different compared to Sony's or Nintendo's. Otherwise they wouldn't offer all games on Pc and xCloud which of course results in less hardware sales. The eyes part was for all the "Haha, 3rd place" people, because it's just stupid to constantly point that out if the main goal is not based on selling the most consoles anymore.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
Of course they want to sell some hardware to get even more subcribers, but their strategy and long term business plan is different compared to Sony's or Nintendo's. Otherwise they wouldn't offer all games on Pc and xCloud which of course results in less hardware sales. The eyes part was for all the "Haha, 3rd place" people, because it's just stupid to constantly point that out if the main goal is not based on selling the most consoles anymore.

That's fine, but these consoles are still in competition and Phil Spencer has said in the past that is a competition he wants to win. We've seen that to be the case continuously with the amount of marketing Microsoft has put into both their Xbox Series consoles. These companies have multiple goals and multiple strategies working in concert. It is fine to say that Microsoft (and Sony to a lesser extent) have expanded their gaming strategy beyond consoles but winning that console competition is still a major goal for all involved.

Funk Apple, lol. The sooner they get their anti competitive asses regulated the better.

I’m all for a free market, but monopolies actually work against openness.

Apple is no more a monopoly than Xbox or PlayStation is though. If we go down the road of regulating walled gardens I'm not sure we are going to like the result.
 

Shmunter

Gold Member
That's fine, but these consoles are still in competition and Phil Spencer has said in the past that is a competition he wants to win. We've seen that to be the case continuously with the amount of marketing Microsoft has put into both their Xbox Series consoles. These companies have multiple goals and multiple strategies working in concert. It is fine to say that Microsoft (and Sony to a lesser extent) have expanded their gaming strategy beyond consoles but winning that console competition is still a major goal for all involved.



Apple is no more a monopoly than Xbox or PlayStation is though. If we go down the road of regulating walled gardens I'm not sure we are going to like the result.
Yes and no. I see a phone as a general purpose device. Gaming consoles more so as purpose built entertainment devices.
 
That's fine, but these consoles are still in competition and Phil Spencer has said in the past that is a competition he wants to win. We've seen that to be the case continuously with the amount of marketing Microsoft has put into both their Xbox Series consoles. These companies have multiple goals and multiple strategies working in concert. It is fine to say that Microsoft (and Sony to a lesser extent) have expanded their gaming strategy beyond consoles but winning that console competition is still a major goal for all involved.
It can't be the goal, because you just can't "win" the hardware sales with Pc ports and xCloud. That's counterproductive, you are not competitive. Right now Microsoft is already in a transition phase for the future and Spencer already said said that Amazon and Google are the real Xbox competitors:

No question Microsoft wants to sell many Xbox, but if you ask them:

A] 100m Xbox sold and 50m Game Pass subs
B) 50m Xbox sold and 100m Game Pass subs

the answer would be B, because that serves their long time business plan.

Exactly.

The difference being, their are quietly exiting the console race, instead of going out with a bang like Sega did.
In the end they will all bend the knee to streaming.
 
Last edited:

Topher

Gold Member
It can't be the goal, because you just can't "win" the hardware sales with Pc ports and xCloud. That's counterproductive, you are not competitive. Right now Microsoft is already in a transition phase for the future and Spencer already said said that Amazon and Google are the real Xbox competitors:

No question Microsoft wants to sell many Xbox, but if you ask them:

A] 100m Xbox sold and 50m Game Pass subs
B) 50m Xbox sold and 100m Game Pass subs

the answer would be B, because that serves their long time business plan.

The answer would be neither since this isn't an either/or business. Microsoft isn't "transitioning". They are expanding, not trading one space for another. PC ports are not going to magically turn console gamers into PC gamers. So, of course, winning in the console space is a goal. Again, Microsoft's continued massive investment in Xbox Series proves that. The demand for consoles is higher than it has ever been before. Console sales are ballooning past last gen and these companies still cannot produce enough units. Doesn't make any sense to me to try and downplay console sales in the current climate.
 
The answer would be neither since this isn't an either/or business. Microsoft isn't "transitioning". They are expanding, not trading one space for another. PC ports are not going to magically turn console gamers into PC gamers. So, of course, winning in the console space is a goal. Again, Microsoft's continued massive investment in Xbox Series proves that. The demand for consoles is higher than it has ever been before. Console sales are ballooning past last gen and these companies still cannot produce enough units. Doesn't make any sense to me to try and downplay console sales in the current climate.
I think we can agree to disagree here, but that's perfectly fine.
 
Apple doesn’t want competition for their Arcade service, so they turned it down under the guise of ‘protecting their users’.
Which is so dumb because Apple Arcade is such garbage for what you pay and not even remotely comparable to Xcloud would have probably offered.

Reminds me of Sony turning down EAplay because they were protecting their customer base and didn’t feel like it was right for them, looool.
 

Three

Member
A] 100m Xbox sold and 50m Game Pass subs
B) 50m Xbox sold and 100m Game Pass subs

the answer would be B, because that serves their long time business plan.
B would serve their short term business plan not their long term one.
A would actually be preferable because it would mean 50M Gold subscriptions + 50M Gamepass subscriptions with a chance to convert more users to subscribers. plus people are now locked into your ecosystem so 30% from any games/dlc they buy. The silly idea that MS doesn't care about hardware sales simply because they are last needs to die.
 
B would serve their short term business plan not their long term one.
A would actually be preferable because it would mean 50M Gold subscriptions + 50M Gamepass subscriptions with a chance to convert more users to subscribers. plus people are now locked into your ecosystem so 30% from any games/dlc they buy. The silly idea that MS doesn't care about hardware sales simply because they are last needs to die.
With B they had more customers that are not bound to console hardware and their long term goal is streaming only. That's why they think Google and Apple are their main competitors.
 

Three

Member
With B they had more customers that are not bound to console hardware and their long term goal is streaming only. That's why they think Google and Apple are their main competitors.
No company would prefer no vendor lock in, what benefit is that to a company?

They see Google and Apple as their main competitor because Phil said so? Yeah don't take what that guy says so literally. Maybe because they too can eat into their new streaming venture. Their long term goal is streaming only because they were not competitive in selling hardware but if given the option of 100M xbox series consoles sold where consumers must buy all games/dlc through your store, must pay you monthly to play online, you can advertise to and still sell the gamepass subscription to, they would take that no questions asked. They've gone streaming because plan A didn't work.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
No company would prefer no vendor lock in, what benefit is that to a company?

They see Google and Apple as their main competitor because Phil said so? Yeah don't take what that guy says so literally. Maybe because they too can eat into their new streaming venture. Their long term goal is streaming only because they were not competitive in selling hardware but if given the option of 100M xbox series consoles sold where consumers must buy all games/dlc through your store, must pay you monthly to play online, you can advertise to and still sell the subscription to, they would take that no question about that. They've gone streaming because plan A didn't work.
Plan A doesnt work, because people have short attention. Hardwares cant reach alot of people, compared to cloud gaming.

If you are business, you take the step that gives you more customers faster. Hardware isnt the answer for that. Especially with the way internet is evolving faster.
 

Three

Member
Plan A doesnt work, because people have short attention. Hardwares cant reach alot of people, compared to cloud gaming.

If you are business, you take the step that gives you more customers faster. Hardware isnt the answer for that. Especially with the way internet is evolving faster.
This isn't true though. Switch has no problem selling hardware. Another example is Apple itself. Apple sell hardware and impose vendor lock in.

How many subscribers has MS reached with xCloud? Is Stadia setting the world alight? These services are not huge.

Given the choice MS would choose A (sell 100M consoles) but they don't have that privilege and they are expanding to other sources of revenue not because it is more lucrative or that they don't care about console sales but because plan A didn't work for them. They would prefer it though 100%.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
This isn't true though. Switch has no problem selling hardware. Another example is Apple itself. Apple sell hardware and impose vendor lock in.

How many subscribers has MS reached with xCloud? Is Stadia setting the world alight? These services are not huge.

Given the choice MS would choose A (sell 100M consoles) but they don't have that privilege and they are expanding to other sources of revenue not because it is more lucrative or that they don't care about console sales but because plan A didn't work for them. They would prefer it though 100%.
Switch is handle held. You can play it anywhere.

November 14, 2019
That is when Xcloud was released. It was beta for phones. They did it for browser, pc and console this year.

MS would still choose cloud. Because they arent reaching the numbers with hardwares.

As of now, ps5 is 13m, while xsx/s is at 8.3m.

You simply dont get 100m faster by over night. By the time consoles are reaching that numbers, those cloud subscription will surpass them.
 

Three

Member
Switch is handle held. You can play it anywhere.

November 14, 2019
That is when Xcloud was released. It was beta for phones. They did it for browser, pc and console this year.

MS would still choose cloud. Because they arent reaching the numbers with hardwares.

As of now, ps5 is 13m, while xsx/s is at 8.3m.

You simply dont get 100m faster by over night. By the time consoles are reaching that numbers, those cloud subscription will surpass them.

There are numerous examples of streaming prior to xcloud if you want to try and make a point that it's in its infancy. Geforce now, PS Now, Stadia, Onlive if you want to go back far enough. They have subscription growth that is less, yes less than hardware sales growth.


MS would still choose cloud. Because they arent reaching the numbers with hardwares.
MS also doing streaming because they aren't reaching the hardware numbers is exactly my point. But if hypothetically they could choose between the two options 100M consoles sold + 50M subs vs 50M console + 100M subs. 100M consoles would be preferred because they would get 50M gold subscriptions on top of that, 30% of all games/dlc sold, can only buy from their store etc. Vendor lock in.
 

kingfey

Banned
There are numerous examples of streaming prior to xcloud if you want to try and make a point that it's in its infancy. Geforce now, PS Now, Stadia, Onlive if you want to go back far enough. They have subscription growth that is less, yes less than hardware sales growth.
Sony has pulled out its pocketbook to snap up streaming game businesses before, and is doing so once again. Today it announced that it has acquired streaming game service OnLive for an undisclosed sum.Apr 2, 2015

and they released psnow, which they didnt bother with it. So that is on Sony.

(Key Points. Nvidia's GeForce Now cloud gaming service has over 12 million users and growing.Oct 12, 2021)

Hardware's are established business that has been going for years.

Your example would be Disc version vs Digital version. Digital version is beating Disc version. Because how easy is to buy it from your couch.

That is what cloud gaming is. You dont need specific hardware for it. Controller, and you are ready to play.

5 years from now, you will see high number of cloud gaming users.
 
No company would prefer no vendor lock in, what benefit is that to a company?

They see Google and Apple as their main competitor because Phil said so? Yeah don't take what that guy says so literally. Maybe because they too can eat into their new streaming venture. Their long term goal is streaming only because they were not competitive in selling hardware but if given the option of 100M xbox series consoles sold where consumers must buy all games/dlc through your store, must pay you monthly to play online, you can advertise to and still sell the gamepass subscription to, they would take that no questions asked. They've gone streaming because plan A didn't work.
The reason they're pushing streaming is because there's a much larger base of potential customers there. Remember Jim Ryan crying about how consoles can only reach a 100m people and thus starting to expand to PC? If you want to keep growing, you gotta somehow expand beyond the console.
 

Three

Member
Sony has pulled out its pocketbook to snap up streaming game businesses before, and is doing so once again. Today it announced that it has acquired streaming game service OnLive for an undisclosed sum.Apr 2, 2015

and they released psnow, which they didnt bother with it. So that is on Sony.

(Key Points. Nvidia's GeForce Now cloud gaming service has over 12 million users and growing.Oct 12, 2021)

Hardware's are established business that has been going for years.

Your example would be Disc version vs Digital version. Digital version is beating Disc version. Because how easy is to buy it from your couch.

That is what cloud gaming is. You dont need specific hardware for it. Controller, and you are ready to play.

5 years from now, you will see high number of cloud gaming users.
"Which they didn't bother with" that's cute. Geforce Now 12 Million and growing. Stadia? Yet your PS5 number for a single year is 13M. Come on man just accept the growth in streaming isn't as big as you think it is when you put down the importance of hardware sales.
The reason they're pushing streaming is because there's a much larger base of potential customers there. Remember Jim Ryan crying about how consoles can only reach a 100m people and thus starting to expand to PC? If you want to keep growing, you gotta somehow expand beyond the console.
Yes that's a given. Hence Topher Topher and I saying "also" and not "either/or" but you have people here trying to make it seem like hardware sales are completely unimportant now. like hardware sales are a drop in the ocean compared to streaming. It isn't. Streaming isn't setting the world on fire and it isn't a larger audience.
If MS could get 100M console sales with half the streaming subscribers they would take it. This silly idea that MS doesn't care about hardware sales anymore because they are struggling to sell consoles needs to die.
 
"Which they didn't bother with" that's cute. Geforce Now 12 Million and growing. Stadia? Yet your PS5 number for a single year is 13M. Come on man just accept the growth in streaming isn't as big as you think it is when you put down the importance of hardware sales.

Yes that's a given. Hence Topher Topher and I saying "also" and not "either/or" but you have people here trying to make it seem like hardware sales are completely unimportant now. like hardware sales are a drop in the ocean compared to streaming. It isn't. Streaming isn't setting the world on fire and it isn't a larger audience.
If MS could get 100M console sales with half the streaming subscribers they would take it. This silly idea that MS doesn't care about hardware sales anymore because they are struggling to sell consoles needs to die.
MS is struggling to sell consoles? Pretty hot take ngl.
 

kingfey

Banned
"Which they didn't bother with" that's cute. Geforce Now 12 Million and growing. Stadia? Yet your PS5 number for a single year is 13M. Come on man just accept the growth in streaming isn't as big as you think it is when you put down the importance of hardware sales.
That tends to happen, when you existed for a long time.

Your cloud gaming are new concept. Something you still ignore it, and call it a flop.

The advantages these cloud have, is easy accessibility for customers. They won't pay 500$ for these hardwares.

GeForce has the buy your games, and we will let you play the gamers we partnered with. That kind of business doesn't represent other cloud gaming business.

The 3 cloud that is on the business is Psnow, stadia and xcloud. Psnow is suffering from neglecting by Sony. Stadia fucked it up their launch status, like the xbox one. That leaves us with xcloud.

Xcloud now exists on every MS computer in the world. That is more than 700m computers in the world. Not to mention, you can download it on every smart android streaming device, android phones/tablet, stream on iPhone/IPad, stream on every Google browser in the world, xsx/s, and Xbox one.

All that is left for MS to advertise it, and people will sub to their service.
 
Last edited:

Three

Member
Xcloud now exists on every MS computer in the world. That is more than 700m computers in the world. Not to mention, you can download it on every smart android streaming device, android phones/tablet, stream on iPhone/IPad, stream on every Google browser in the world, xsx/s, and Xbox one.

All that is left for MS to advertise it, and people will sub to their service.
This reminds me of the billions of potential sales when xbox one/PS4 release in china.

Any excuse for every streaming service since 2015 but xcloud is different and the golden child. The golden child that has had just as low growth as the others.
 
Last edited:
Compared to Nintendo and Sony, yes? Did this offend you?
No, it just surprised me that someone would claim something like this when the opposite is true. Series is the best selling Xbox console ever, despite shortages and xCloud server racks.
 

kingfey

Banned
This reminds me of the billions of potential sales when xbox one/PS4 release in china.

Any excuse for every streaming service since 2015 but xcloud is different and the golden child. The golden child that has had just as low growth as the others.
(Home gaming consoles were banned in mainland China from June 2000 until 2013; when the ban was lifted, eighth-generation consoles such as the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 were allowed in the country. ... However the game is still on-sale on the Chinese grey market.)

Look before you post it.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
The answer would be neither since this isn't an either/or business. Microsoft isn't "transitioning". They are expanding, not trading one space for another. PC ports are not going to magically turn console gamers into PC gamers. So, of course, winning in the console space is a goal. Again, Microsoft's continued massive investment in Xbox Series proves that. The demand for consoles is higher than it has ever been before. Console sales are ballooning past last gen and these companies still cannot produce enough units. Doesn't make any sense to me to try and downplay console sales in the current climate.

Yeah, I'm not seeing their lack of commitment to the console space. They invested in building not 1 but 2 consoles, a strange thing to do if you are halfway out the door and don't care about this market. Plus, why even bother being price competitive, you'd think they would have just released the XSX at $600 if they were just selling to the die hards and walking away.

Their actions (especially XSS) seem to indicate they are trying to compete as best they can.
 

kingfey

Banned
B would serve their short term business plan not their long term one.
A would actually be preferable because it would mean 50M Gold subscriptions + 50M Gamepass subscriptions with a chance to convert more users to subscribers. plus people are now locked into your ecosystem so 30% from any games/dlc they buy. The silly idea that MS doesn't care about hardware sales simply because they are last needs to die.
You will lose those, when the new gen starts. Plus you earn these on gamepass too.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Yeah, I'm not seeing their lack of commitment to the console space. They invested in building not 1 but 2 consoles, a strange thing to do if you are halfway out the door and don't care about this market. Plus, why even bother being price competitive, you'd think they would have just released the XSX at $600 if they were just selling to the die hards and walking away.

Their actions (especially XSS) seem to indicate they are trying to compete as best they can.

Exactly. Not only that, Xbox just went through its most tumultuous period with the Xbox One and they came out of that doubling down on Xbox consoles. If Microsoft had any intention of leaving the console market the Xbox One would have given them the perfect opportunity. Nope. Xbox is now thriving again because of record demand. As long as that demand exists Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo will all be striving to carve out the biggest piece of that pie they can. As consumers, that is competition we should never want to go away.
 

Ozriel

Member
Perhaps, but I just hope that if there ever is regulation put in place that it makes that distinction. Governments tend to paint in broad strokes.

As long as consoles are sold subsidized, nobody is going to paint with such broad strokes.

When the walls come down, console prices go up.
 

Topher

Gold Member
As long as consoles are sold subsidized, nobody is going to paint with such broad strokes.

When the walls come down, console prices go up.

Assuming regulators are going to care if consoles are subsidized or even differentiate one walled garden from another. But if the walls come down I'm not sure consoles will even remain a viable business.
 

yugoluke

Member
Article: https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/9/...loud-streaming-exclusives-iphone-ipad-gamepas









Missed this personally whilst being offline but thought it was interesting news

As someone who also follows apple news and rumors quite regularly, I think it might actually be a interesting if Microsoft was able to make sure their games would be able to run natively on Apples newest ARM "Apple Silicon" processors. Currently their are no large publishers that are committing to the platform. These new apple chips are quite amazing when they run software that runs natively, without the need for emulation.

If they want to be on as many platforms as possible, and apple will not allow game streaming on their platform, this might be the next best solution.

We know that windows has an ARM variant of their own, and if they push for software compatibility natively, new audiences would be able to play their games on different platforms.

Their are obvious reasons why they would not want to do this, namely the fact that they would rather people be on windows rather than mac, but depending on what their main objective is this could be a method to get their games on the mac, and ios platforms.
 

DaGwaphics

Gold Member
Assuming regulators are going to care if consoles are subsidized or even differentiate one walled garden from another. But if the walls come down I'm not sure consoles will even remain a viable business.

I'm one of those people that would never give government regulators the benefit of the doubt in regards to being nuanced. :messenger_tears_of_joy:
 

Three

Member
Series is the best selling Xbox console
The fact it's outselling other MS consoles means nothing when you're talking about how MS consoles are selling.
it's not selling anywhere near the hypothetical 100M in any case.

You will lose those, when the new gen starts. Plus you earn these on gamepass too.
No you dont. You don't earn gold subscribers from somebody playing your game on a mobile or PC. You don't earn 30% on games people buy on steam or Epic store.
You can lose subscribers to a service faster than you lose a console user. A console sale promotes vendor lock in. Switching consoles means selling controllers, losing your past games etc. Losing a subscriber is somebody just hitting unsubscribe if they want to switch to another service.
 
Last edited:

Kortan

Neo Member
Compared to Nintendo and Sony, yes? Did this offend you?
That's a weird take. Are they selling less? Yes. Are they struggling? I don't think so.

It's like saying Microsoft is struggling with Azure because they are second to Amazon.
 

Three

Member
That's a weird take. Are they selling less? Yes. Are they struggling? I don't think so.

It's like saying Microsoft is struggling with Azure because they are second to Amazon.

Struggling doesn't mean doomed. They are struggling in comparison to.
What I mean is that I've seen a lot of people trying to say hardware sales are not important or are now irrelevant simply because MS struggle in comparison to its competitors in that regard.
 

Ozriel

Member
Assuming regulators are going to care if consoles are subsidized or even differentiate one walled garden from another. But if the walls come down I'm not sure consoles will even remain a viable business.

That fact would come out in any regulatory discussion. At worst, it’d stall any changed until the next generation.
 
Top Bottom