Zeroing
Banned
I was joking but if both companies were European, that deal would not happened, the European Union would had blocked it. There’s a difference in the free market definition, between Europe and USA.
-
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.
During Epic Apple case, Microsoft lawyer says they've never made a profit selling Xbox consoles
- Thread starter kyliethicc
- Start date
Salty Popsicle
Banned
As long as a console or PC is needed to run a game, it will remain critical. However, the streaming future has already encompassed video and music, and will encompass gaming as well this decade."Hardware is critical"
Someone somewhere told me the exact opposite of this statement
laynelane
Member
Back in the day, DLC was a hotly contested subject (when it first became a thing). I remember having to look up what it stood for. Now it and MTX have become the norm and more profitable than the games they come with. I've come to really appreciate the few games left that are simple, stand-alone products.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Why is the Apple lawyer grilling MS about closed systems?
yurinka
Member
I said 'at least', which doesn't imply that it will happen.
It's possible if ISP change their business model removing data caps in all countries, if someone invents something to highly reduce latency of fiber optic with something that breaks the current laws of physics that prevents data of travelling faster than light, and if someone invents something that replaces 4G, 5G or satellite internet and offers some type of non-wired internet connection that offers 100% worldwide coverage while also reducing its latency issues. As of not that won't happen and seems pretty clear that won't happen in at least 10 years.
But I'm optimistic so I left the door open for possible future innovations that right now we can't predict for maybe 20 years from now. Maybe something related to quantum physics or quantum computers or something like that.
I assume to prove that Apple needs to have a closed system with a single store and charging 30%. Like saying 'MS does the same and isn't a good business enough for them, so our system isn't abusive", "other companies do the same than us and nobody sues them", etc.
Last edited:
Hendrick's
If only my penis was as big as my GamerScore!
This isn't news.
ethomaz
Banned
After Stadia success you can see nobody talks about streaming anymore.
It was a common topic here in GAF some years ago... used as fuel to future market domination.
Last edited:
Dr Bass
Member
No, not really. The guy should have just said no, because there is no monopoly and it's an entertainment device. It's not the same situation whatsoever.
BTW, the EU has already stated that Apple is in breach of anti-trust over the App Store. I'm sure that's entirely without merit though of course. Also the US Govt doing the same thing doesn't mean anything right?
I can see why people get on your case on this site for other reasons. You literally have no idea what you're talking about and then celebrate victory over things you take completely out of context.
DaGwaphics
Member
This deal had to be cleared in Europe and regulators saw no issues with it. Companies are allowed to merge in the EU, especially in such a crowded field as game development.
1) To show the hypocrisy's of MS and Epic
2) See above (but there was a second reason i forgotten it)
Zeroing
Banned
There’s still the lag and if you are playing games and your wife is watching movies and your kids YouTube, that could also have an impact on the internet connection
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Wait, MS is there in defense of Epic?
kretos
Banned
Iced Arcade
Member
Shots fired. MS, Sony, Nintendo, EGS etc all have closed systems.
I don't like Apple but they got a point... Open the gates! Lol
I don't know if it would have honestly, if Zenimax was European maybe due to geo-politics but it doesn't really reach the same level of concern imo.
DaGwaphics
Member
Obviously trying to point out that Xbox is no different from an iPhone.
ethomaz
Banned
Nah the lawer was deadly to show the hypocrisy of the previous set of questions by Epic and MS.
The MS and Apple have very similar closed system policies tells a lot and makes the guy answering these questions dumb.
When somebody replies "I'm no expert in..." you know you hit the nerve.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I get that, but my main question is rather, was MS there in defense of Epic, or is this a 3-way battle everyone out for themselves?
DaGwaphics
Member
Apparently MS is all in on taking down this one specific walled garden. LOL
They'd like to keep their own though. But I guess MS's doesn't count because the hardware is basically charity.
Last edited:
Sadly not good ones but there are some on youtube but the audio was shit on day 1, I am following rebecca valentine and for nowis there a live stream for this ?
Zeroing
Banned
Like I said if they were European meaning they were be judged differently. There’s a reason why Europe does not have big tech companies like Apple or Google
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ahhh, ok, I see now. That's what I thought. I'm up to speed again.
Silly ole MS. They should know a thing or two about anti-trust. Sick burn by the Apple lawyer.
Last edited:
Salty Popsicle
Banned
So by your logic, since Virtual Boy failed back in 1995, no iteration of VR will ever succeed in the future, including PSVR2?
poodaddy
Member
It has always been this way, yet people are acting like it's somehow news. Anything to stoke the flames of the console wars I guess.
It's seems to be based a definition of General Computing Device that they think means those devices should be 'open' at least to the same level as MacOS.
I don't think it was that sick, MS killed the question there.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
When this Apple vs Epic thing was in the works, who knew it would blow up into a smorgasbord of other information. And even better, some court clerk was uploading confidential docs yesterday by accident. lol. I thought it was going to be just a bunch of Epic and Apple lawyers bickering at each other's companies.
But I'm liking it.
But I'm liking it.
Last edited:
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Ooof, what a weird thing to say by the judge.
You can apply that to any consumer model then. I bought an (insert brand car here), I should have access to drive any of their fleet at my digression, what they don't have subscription services?
DaGwaphics
Member
The hypocrisy of it all is astounding to me. I don't think those that back Epic realize just what will happen to gaming if we lose subsidized hardware. Especially if it happens before some kind of streaming alternative is completely viable.
No, and not even close. The guy answered exactly as he should have. Whether he's there as an expert or there as MS designated agent (my guess), the last thing he should do is get into a debate with Apple's lawyer about whether or not MS has a monopoly. No good would come from it pr wise, and frankly he probably gave the most accurate answer possible unless he is an expert on all laws related to monopolies.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
They'll all resort to shitty steamboxes, then eventually wither away.
Zeroing
Banned
Not quite, if only Xbox would had taken out the charger to “save the environment”
Apple is so ridiculous
ethomaz
Banned
So we can expect streaming to successes in 2045?
I hope to be living until there... well I should be with just over 60 years old.
Last edited:
Zeroing
Banned
Trust me, the European Union is borderline paranoid! They forced a ISP provider here in Portugal to break into 2 companies to add even more competition to the market…
She said that to the Wright (MS) whom clarified that they did want the subscription model. It's just MS trying to highlight the difference that between streaming non-interactive Video and Games (interactive video). It will be for nothing in this case.
On the potential impact, I share your concern. It seems Epic is trying to protect friendlies by differentiating loses on hardware. Whether that's enough to protect Sony / MS while hurting Apple is questionable of course.
Also - PSA time - before concluding MS or Sony are hypocrites, bear in mind that either Apple and/or Epic may have subpoenaed the companies, who then are required to send a qualified agent to testify. If that is what is going on, then they are not really testifying as experts, and are testifying as representatives of the companies. Obviously, the companies are not going to send someone to say Epic is right, and we should get broken up along with Apple if Epic wins.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
It took Netflix less than 5 years to bankrupt Blockbuster and less than a decade for digital music to surpass physical music sales when Apple launched iTunes.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
But she said she was confused as to why Apple would require a separate app for every game. It's no different than separate applications on SteamStore or the like. I don't get her confusion.
Dodkrake
Banned
Microsoft makes no money on the hardware and has never done so, Sony makes profit over the hardware lifecycle. And to be clear, we're only talking consoles here.
ethomaz
Banned
We will be here in five years and steaming won’t be thing...
DaGwaphics
Member
Of coarse. My primary concern if Epic wins here is that this case will be used against the console makers by someone else. It doesn't matter if Epic is all buddy, buddy on it now, another firm could see this a a viable precedent.
Last edited:
LisaMariaMartin
Banned
No but if Epic succeeds, Microsoft can put Game Pass and their own store on any device they want.
Salty Popsicle
Banned
It's already a thing. I can stream any GamePass game on my phone this very moment.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
I get that as well.
harmny
Banned
i get what you mean. apple is selling iphones at a loss because they make the money back with the app store and their 30% cut.
oh wait a minute. the $1250 iphone max costed apple $450 to make
The $1,250 iPhone XS Max Costs Apple $450 To Make, Nearly A 200% Profit Margin
The teardown of Apple's 256 GB iPhone XS Max ($1,199) revealed that the actual cost of making the phone was just $443, including the price of all the phone's components as well as test and assembly costs, which is about $50 more than for last year's entry-level iPhone X (64 GB).
www.forbes.com
Last edited:
Zeroing
Banned
DaGwaphics
Member
i get what you mean. apple is selling iphones at a loss because they make the money back with the app store and their 30% cut.
oh wait a minute. the $1250 iphone max costed apple $450 to make
The $1,250 iPhone XS Max Costs Apple $450 To Make, Nearly A 200% Profit Margin
The teardown of Apple's 256 GB iPhone XS Max ($1,199) revealed that the actual cost of making the phone was just $443, including the price of all the phone's components as well as test and assembly costs, which is about $50 more than for last year's entry-level iPhone X (64 GB).
I don't think the profit/loss from the product angle would ever hold up. Apple losing here will ultimately strike at any walled garden, IMO.
Also, look at the power we are giving the courts there, who decides how profitable is too profitable? Is $1 profit on the hardware too much, or is it $2?
Last edited:
Bridges
Member
Amusing to me that even MS internal teams cannot get Balan Wonderworld's name correct
Similar threads
- Poll