The only thing better than owning the competition, is putting them out of business.
So they buy studios that compete, fire all the workers, keep the IPs, and call it a day.
If we enforced anti-monoply laws this wouldn't be a thing. But monopolies dontate a lot of money to politicians so they say monopolies aren't a big deal.
Average Americans are being priced out of democracy by both parties. The candidate for both will be who the wealthy pick, and everyone will have to vote if they want to keep who they hate most out of office.
If you're wealthy there's no way to lose, if you're the other 99.9% you can't win.
Regular people can't out lobby Microsoft and Disney, and unless a progressive third party emerges the system will keep getting worse.
While political system is captured... I am talking about gen pop discourse. Vast majority got nothing to hide, it is convienient, poor people suck, shoulda worked harder, quit being poor, there is nothing can be, we just really don't know.
This rhetoric is pathetic for any self respecting adult yet here we are.
Sure if everybody got educated about their lot in life they could theoretically vote in a third party but let's be real here, we got some app to circle jerk for engagement slop that induces you to buy plastic shit to make feelz
unless a progressive third party emerges the system will keep getting worse
If a progressive third party emerges, they'll split the vote with Democrats, making both of them weaker. That'll just give every election to Republicans and make the country get worse even faster.
The only way to get progressive candidates is by moving the Overton window to the left, and the only way to do that is by voting for Democrats.
People tried to block the Activision acquisition. Some were mocked for their attempt and some were mocked for their stance. It wasn't enforced because for all the attempts, it couldn't be proved which is more an indicator better definitions needed to be in place
INVESTORS INVESTORS LOOK AT HOW MANY STUDIOS WE CAN BUY LOOK LOOK WE'RE SOOO PROFITABLE two hours later
WERE REMOVING SO MUCH DEAD WEIGHT INVESTORS LOOK WE'RE GOING TO BE SO PROFITABLE AFTER THIS
Reduce the number of studios. The number of sold copies of games stays constant. Therefore, the money going to the remaining studios goes up.
If the cost of purchasing the studio is less than the number of diverted sales, its in your interest to buy up and shut down competition. The only reason this math would change is if people exclusively purchased from the shut-down studios. And we all know why they don't.
As a kicker, you can wring some extra cash out of old properties by turning them into shitty reskinned Pay2Win mobile games covered in the flesh mask of the old IP.
Therefore, the money going to the remaining studios goes up.
LOL
People believe this shit? The money goes directly to some CX or some manegement asshole or chair or board or fucking whatever. What studios? What devs?
"Generally it's not a good idea to tell people to refund and leave negative reviews when you're a community manager. TIL," Spitz said. "I appreciate all the support and I appreciate even more that everyone can play the game again without restrictions. I knew I was taking a risk with what I said about refunding and changing reviews. I stand by it. It was my job to represent the community, that's what I did."
They added: "I wanted to work for Arrowhead because they're my all-time favorite studio. I got that chance. I'm thankful for that opportunity. I'd happily continue working for them if I had the choice, but that isn't up to me or anyone else in here. I can walk away happy and I don't want anyone causing trouble on my behalf, especially not to people I still have a lot of care and respect for."
This definitely sounds like Sony wanted them out and Arrowhead wanted them to stay.
Microsoft has been a fucking blight on gaming. Paid online, and timed exclusives both started there. No resale if we didn't throw a massive fit about it. Buying up studios to kill them. I mean Sony has their share of being fucks as well, but at least they're making good games. Microsoft has barely any decent games the last 2 generations, and hellblade 2 which is looking great was a Sony game that they had to buy and make exclusive.
"Is carbonite, like...an actual thing? Can I be frozen like Han Solo? I have a little bit of money saved up. Which stupid tech bro startup can do this for me?"
wait so the bodies are frozen after the person has already died?
I thought the point was to get frozen while still alive so that you could be thawed out in the future and continue living. which, while still very stupid, is something I can wrap my head around as a concept.
am I just now learning that the whole thing is predicated on the wish that we will one day be able to reanimate dead people??
They ideal for most of them is absolutely that they can be frozen while still alive and unfrozen later. We are nowhere near that technology though so most fallback to the second hope. Yes, that is that when they're unfrozen in the future we can cure whatever it is that killed them. From what I've seen in documentaries, most of the people signing up know it's the world's furthest longshot, but they figure they're dead either way, why not take it? Worst that happens is they stay dead but hopefully science learned something from their body at least, best case is they wake up in the 24½th century and keep on truckin.
Also, considering that they need access to freeze things inside of you quickly enough, such as your brain, I think most subjects would prefer that they were dead first.
They have the money to basically buy any studio they want if they could, Nintendo and Sony included.
Their gaming division isn’t a monopoly, but with their parents funding yeah they could be and that’s the problem. They could buy everyone up and leave them selves alone in the market.
The FTC was trying to do something. Than Microsoft convinced them they weren’t going to do X if they sold Y, so they let the cloud gaming go, and then immediately did what they said they wouldn’t.
If they didn’t lie to the FTC they would have done something about it than and there.
It’s not a monopoly until it is, and that’s what they are trying to avoid, stuff getting to that point in the first place.
Yes, they let the cloud gaming go so the EU wouldn’t deem them a monopoly, they than told the FTC they weren’t going to lay anyone off. And a month later or so they laid off 2000 employees while using the excuse it was happening anyways regardless of the merger.
What other merger was there you could be confusing this with?
I wasn't confusing any merger, I was wondering what action specifically you were referring to is all. There were a few different points the FTC was concerned with in that case.
Microsoft has barely any decent games the last 2 generations
I remember buying the XBox and only ever owning Halo for years, because the rest of the library was utter shit. Then Halo got too popular and Microsoft had to gut the talent and sell the husk for scraps.
its clear in hindsight that there needs to be more regulation to prevent buyouts of competitors and more protections for workers under buyouts/mergers such as paying workers for at least 3 years after the sale of a company.
3 gives people time to wrap up projects, move etc, basically any life most folks could have reasonably scheduled can be shifted in 3 years, it gives new parents time to take care of their kid and transition back to normal work. And the way to do it would be to have the companies pay the wages whether they lay them off or not (encouraging retraining rather than layoffs.)
Although if what you wanted to do was was absolutely ruin the incentives that mergers create for layoffs the average appointment length of a CEO might do it.
It makes sense. I respect the hell out of the guy for being honest and true of his morals and standing by his community, but I'm sure he knew what he could get into by doing that, and he took the shot anyway. I hope he's just been shuffled around elsewhere and still has a job.
Microsoft is buying up companies to stockpile IP. Simple as that.
Then they have a lot of redundant workers so they let them go, leaving the IP in their hands to be filed away for potential lawsuits against infringers.
Is it still EEE when they're shooting themselves in the foot all the time? Xbox 360 had a good run but then during the cycle they dropped the ball and even got overtaken by PS3 late. One and Series S/X don't matter that much.
PlayStation often makes unforced errors that make you wonder how it gained such a significant foothold across the last few console generations and such a fiercely loyal audience.
Mostly unforced errors from other companies. It's dumb decisions all the way down.
Yeah they both make a bunch of really anti consumer choices constantly, I never got the diehards who go hard for the console. Exclusive games I can at least understand, but is an Xbox really that functionality different from a PlayStation?
I was a Nintendo kid in the 99s, then had a PS2 followed by a 360, I really only got a PS4 cause the opportunity for a deal came up, and I only got a PS5 cause I already had a PS4.
Admittedly that's probably where most of the fan clubbing comes from, generationally upgrading until you're to use to the system to change.
I don't think they would be ditching the table if they were winning tbh. Their goal is always to get as many people to subscribe to their stuff as possible
Let's not forget that with Gamepass, it's not just a better game by folding in PC, but they're doing something completely different with their consoles than Sony is. More and more, Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are either competing with Valve or against themselves, and not each other.
Except for Nintendo, they're still just doing what they've been doing for the last 20 years, releasing consoles with outdated hardware and relying on gimmicks to sell them, at this point they're not even trying to compete anymore, Valve is a stronger competitor for Microsoft and Sony than Nintendo nowadays.
Still, raw processing power comparatively it is underpowered, can't push beyond 1080p for example, which is fine for Nintendo games because they make games with that limitation in mind, third party switch games are a lot more hit or miss, especially ports of pc games.
Compared to even cell phones the switch is laughably underpowered in the year 2024.
Not saying it can't be useful or enjoyable, just gotta face facts about what the device is lol.
Steam deck is starting to eat their lunch I think.
Playstation's exclusives are on the whole, a lot more interesting to me. I honestly have almost no interest in Xbox because of that. It's not the hardware, it's purely the software.
I feel like we‘re not seeing/talking about the reason the console market is another duopoly. Its a harsh failure on cartel prevention laws imo. New consoles should pop up here and there yet they dont (very small opening for steamseck likes). Its not a healthy market.
At first glance I think the IP laws are the problem here. A new console should be able to run xbox games and/or ps5 games and compete on hardware and ergonomics alone imo. That way the competition would drive prices down and decisions would again be for improving the service, not the bottom line.
I think the answer is simple (they probably mentioned it in the article I'm not reading). Sony makes good hardware and good games. They don't really need to compete with Nintendo since they kinda do their own thing at this point, and Microsoft is really no better. I also think Playstation is generally regarded as having better exclusives, even during the 360 era where Xbox clearly won.
My experience is that seems to be a US centric view that the 360 "won" it's generation, I've never encountered that view locally and it's ultimately not born out by statistics although it was the closest Microsoft ever came.
In the UK, where I'm from, it's widely considered 360 won too.
The reason the PS3 won in the end I think was due to a worsening opinion of Microsoft towards the end when the original plan for the Xbox One was being discussed and shown, along with a lot of teenage gamers now being older with more disposable income allowing them to buy a PS3 later in the generation and trying out all of the exclusives they missed out on.
I don't know how true this rings out in general, but that was pretty much my experience.
The north east for me. Pretty much everyone had a 360 and everyone still calls it "the 360 days" or something of the other. But might just be the people I come across. Only had a few friends that had a PS3 in school, they always seemed to be left out from what the others were doing gaming wise. Wasn't until the PS4 until I started seeing people back to playing PlayStation by default like the PS2 days.
This exact method is how Microsoft became a giant in the first place. They've been doing it for longer than I live and they'll likely outlive me doing it.
But now I'm not. I don't have a PSN account and I don't care to make one just for this game.
The games industry is real crap now. There's so much resistance to just being able to download a game and play. It's always about downloading proprietary launchers, signing up for new accounts, wading through micro transactions, unfinished games, bad stories, and bug-ridden experiences.
Corpos are incapable of learning the right lessons. I wouldn't be surprised if the take away from this at Sony was to eliminate internal voices that were against the decision so it's easier to pull off next time.
Article gets kinda weird at the end and calls the review bombing harassment. Seems like a 180 from the beginning of the article, unless the writer thinks Sony would have changed its mind with 0 protest action.
It also calls all the customers who don't want to be locked out of the product they paid for 'fickle' and brought up gamergate out of nowhere, so I'm honestly not sure what sort of agenda they're pushing.
The whole article was poorly written honestly, but yeah, that part really felt off. If the only thing they care about is money, then by nature our only real means of protest is to affect their money.
I think they came to the wrong conclusion. Yes those games were cheaper, but really they were just good, and mostly finished at launch. Didn't feel like we were nickle and dimed for more DLC or season passes or mtxs, we got whole games that were fun.
All the big "AAA blockbuster" games anymore are reskinned, half finished versions of the last version, and the only thing they've put a ton of time into is analyzing how to get addicts hooked and spending the maximum amount on micro transactions.
I'm not sure how anybody can look at the way GTA 5 online was monetized to hell and not seriously question how far they're going to try to go with GTA 6. I'm fully expecting it to leak into GTA 6's single player with an intense focus on getting more and more out of mtx.
If GTA 5 came out today it wouldn’t be worth $60. The “big open sandbox” experience isn’t as big a pull as it used to be.
I bought 5 because it was “the next GTA” and I remembered having a good time with 4. Today it’s a little harder to remember the last time i even played a GTA game. 5 released a decade ago, 4 is going on 16 years old, fucken San Andreas turns 20 this year.
The next release is just gonna be GTA Online 2, we all know it already.
They cannot improve these games, give them meaningful updates or expansions. But they have killed many of their competitors and further monopolised the industry.
The second Microsoft gains a market majority in the gaming industry they will employ as many scummy tactics as possible to wring every cent out of people.
Basically the old EA approach. They don't seem to realize that EA never restored their reputation from those days. But, I guess they don't care as long as they can show a line going ever upward for the shareholders.
kotaku.com
Top