Support NeoGAF

[SenjutsuSage]

Google and Nvidia officially joining the party?
Shit is getting more and more complicated it seems

Nvidia isn't opposing the deal. They just expressed concerns.

And as DarkMage619 said, Microsoft has honored every videogame contract they have entered into. It is a challenge of anyone making claims their word can't be trusted to prove such a case, and to actually do so successfully before federal court, where this will eventually go if it isn't settled by then.

 

[Foilz]

You'd be an idiot to skip up on cod, which is among one of the most sold annual franchises every year.

Don't know what you're trying to do with that downplaying, but it ain't working.

I know how popular it is but this deal is getting more complicated and looks like a it's getting out of reach. Acti isnt gonna sell the cod franchise because without it there's no acti.

Ms wants content for GP and I'd much rather have a Capcom or ubi who have content than a COD or just take the blizzard ips

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I didn't knew that jezz was working for kotaku.

 

[GHG]

My list of "gaming" companies that need to shut the fuck up (in order)

1. Nvidia

Xbox gamers when asked which companies in the industry they hate if this deal falls through:

 

[Three]

You are ignoring the fact that nvidia are the ones who are benefiting from this, and not the developers.

They are allowing other people's products to be streamed on their service, while not paying them.

There is something called streaming rights. Nvidia doesnt have that. It doenst matter if the user buys the product, nvidia has no rights to stream that product.

The developers can benefit from sales but some choose to benefit from platform holders because that's where they get better money. Contracts with platform holders.

They are choosing to compete for platform holders attention rather than consumer sales. They are relying on the idea that the platform holder must pay for content and when the platform holder pays do you think it's going to allow competing platform holders access to that content?

This is my point. It's not that Nvidia don't have a compelling product in comparison to other streaming services. They have one of the best. It's that they didn't buy that content as a platform holder and they can't negotiate deals equally after an acquisition by a rival platform holder.

 

[feynoob]

What the fuck are you on about? Of course Nvidia benefit from publishers and developers creating games. They are a hardware supplier. Them, AMD, Intel and the countless other hardware vendors in the PC building space benefit every time games are released and purchased by customers. Without these companies there is no way for PC gamers to be able to even play these games. Every industry has sub-industries that benefit, and usually these relationships are symbiotic - without one there cannot be the other.

WHat does that have to do with streamng?

When you purchase a game it doesn't matter, you have the right to play that game on one PC or hundreds of PCs, whether locally or virtually. There is nowhere in these EULAs that states you must own the piece of hardware you wish to play the game on. This is why there was an uproar when games initially started getting pulled from Geforce Now.

It matters, since the owner of the product dictates where you can play those games (PC specific launcher, xbox, PS, Nintendo). Its their product.

The greedy mentality of trying to nickel and dime every PC game purchase in order to profit from things like install limits etc was exactly the reason why it almost went under in the 2000's.

Their product, and have every right to do whatever they want with. They arent a charitable company.

If they want to restrict their customers from playing the PC games they've purchased via services like Geforce Now or even Shadow PC (which they have no way of restricting by the way, even gamepass works on that service, so good luck) then it's simple, customers who wish to use virtual PC cloud streaming services wont purchase their games at all. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face, especially in the case of publishers who don't even offer their own streaming alternative.

You are advocating for companies to allow other business to profit from their product? And if they try to stop them, they are the bad guys?

I hate their greed, but this is bullshit. These companies own these products. You cant go around and use their products, without paying them. This is just a theft, and you are benifiting from other people's work.

 

[The_Mike]

Ms wants content for GP and I'd much rather have a Capcom or ubi who have content than a COD or just take the blizzard ips

Wait wait, you want more far cry and assassins creed over cod, Diablo, Warcraft, crash, etc?

To each their own, but id rather want these games.

Besides, GP is already crawling with Ubisoft titles.

 

[feynoob]

This is my point. It's not that Nvidia don't have a compelling product in comparison to other streaming services. They have one of the best. It's that they didn't buy that content as a platform holder and they can't negotiate deals after an acquisition by a rival platform holder.

If nvidia is willing to negotiate for streaming rights and willing to the pay the fees, then they have a compeling argument. MS or other companies blocking that would raise some suspicious eyes.

 

[Three]

If nvidia is willing to negotiate for streaming rights and willing to the pay the fees, then they have a compeling argument. MS or other companies blocking that would raise some suspicious eyes.

If Nvidia went to MS and asked to negotiate streaming rights for Zenimax titles MS can legally tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine. There is nothing "suspicious eyes" can do about it. It's now MS property. If the ABK deal goes through the same applies.

 

[GHG]

WHat does that have to do with streamng?

Streaming a game you already own is no different to playing it on local hardware. I can stream game within my own home, I can set up a PC on the other side of the world and stream the games I own from it, there is nothing in the EULAs to stop me doing so.

It matters, since the owner of the product dictates where you can play those games (PC specific launcher, xbox, PS, Nintendo). Its their product.

Their product, and have every right to do whatever they want with. They arent a charitable company.

No, when a game is sold to you you are entering into an agreement for the license of said copy of the game. That agreement is outlined in the EULA, at that point they categorically cannot "do what they want with it".

You are advocating for companies to allow other business to profit from their product? And if they try to stop them, they are the bad guys?

I hate their greed, but this is bullshit. These companies own these products. You cant go around and use their products, without paying them. This is just a theft, and you are benifiting from other people's work.

Every time a piece of PC hardware is sold because a user wants to play a game on said piece of hardware its "theft". You heard it here first.

Every time a game is sold multiple companies in the industry are profiting in some way. Publishers and developers are not entitled to any of the spoils beyond the price agreed with the customer for the game at the time of purchase. They can't just retroactively alter the agreements made at the time of purchase and then tell their customers "well actually you can't play your game on this PC, that PC, and that other PC over there. We need to first check and approve the PC's you want to play on before you can do so". It doesn't work like that.

The only reason streaming is suddenly contentious is because most of the major publishers have their own streaming services (or are currently developing their own services) and want to force people to subscribe to those instead of using alternative services and/or utilising copies of games they've already purchased. Microsoft do exactly that. That is what is called restricting consumer choice. And that is exactly why regulators are looking at this deal with eyes wide open.

 

[Iced Arcade]

I didn't knew that jezz was working for kotaku.

I'm an xbox fan buttttt man that guy is cringy.


Edit: a fake.... How sad are you to make fake tweets

 

[Topher]

I didn't knew that jezz was working for kotaku.

His mike not working during that BBC interview probably saved his career.

 

[Clintizzle]

Xbox gamers when asked which companies in the industry they hate if this deal falls through:

Not just as an Xbox fan but as someone who doesn't want to be part of this boomer world where graphics cards cost $3000 and Standard games sell for $140NZ. Any company trying to block this on the grounds of them not being able to compete with GamePass can get fucked.

In saying that I still bought a 4080 and Ratchet and Clank at full price this year...

 

[GHG]

Not just as an Xbox fan but as someone who doesn't want to be part of this boomer world where graphics cards cost $3000 and Standard games sell for $140NZ. Any company trying to block this on the grounds of them not being able to compete with GamePass can get fucked

Yeh, thats not why these companies want the deal looked at and are questioning Microsoft's motives, so you're alright.

 

[Clintizzle]

Yeh, thats not why these companies want the deal looked at and are questioning Microsoft's motives, so you're alright.

It's partly the reason.

 

[GHG]

It's partly the reason.

There are many reasons. All is explained in all the documents that have been made public by the various regulators.

 

[Chiggs]

Some random thoughts:

• I no longer believe this deal is going through.
  • If it does, the concessions will be so absurd that MS will rue the day it decided to accept them.
• I think the hysterics over it are quite funny, but it's clear that MS's reputation from the Gates/Ballmer years still haunts it...and that's a huge problem.
• I pretty much envision MS going into to full troll mode once they abandon this effort.
  • This, sadly, will only worsen their reputation, but the head honchos will not be able to pass up any opportunity for revenge against Sony, Google and Nvidia...but mostly Sony.
• To compensate, MS will start swallowing up any and all IPs and small to mid-sized devs they can.

Also, it's time to push Phil Spencer out the door. The amount of devs they have who are sitting around playing with their dicks is just absurd. I wish I had a job there; no responsibility or accountability needed.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

His mike not working during that BBC interview probably saved his career.

wait wat? I thought that pic was a meme.

 

[Three]

Streaming a game you already own is no different to playing it on local hardware. I can stream game within my own home, I can set up a PC on the other side of the world and stream the games I own from it, there is nothing in the EULAs to stop me doing so.


No, when a game is sold to you you are entering into an agreement for the license of said copy of the game. That agreement is outlined in the EULA, at that point they categorically cannot "do what they want with it".



Every time a piece of PC hardware is sold because a user wants to play a game on said piece of hardware its "theft". You heard it here first.

Every time a game is sold multiple companies in the industry are profiting in some way. Publishers and developers are not entitled to any of the spoils beyond the price agreed with the customer for the game at the time of purchase. They can't just retroactively alter the agreements made at the time of purchase and then tell their customers "well actually you can't play your game on this PC, that PC, and that other PC over there. We need to first check and approve the PC's you want to play on before you can do so". It doesn't work like that.

The only reason streaming is suddenly contentious is because most of the major publishers have their own streaming services (or are currently developing their own services) and want to force people to subscribe to those instead of using alternative services and/or utilising copies of games they've already purchased. Microsoft do exactly that. That is what is called restricting consumer choice. And that is exactly why regulators are looking at this deal with eyes wide open.

Unfortunately the publishers have a way of making it an illegal activity. There is a good writeup about it here explaining how the publishers can challenge GFN. Nvidia can probably fight back on specific titles but it probably doesn't want to burn bridges for future titles and just complies.

 

[Topher]

wait wat? I thought that pic was a meme.

lol....is it? Guess it doesn't matter when it is easy seeing him tweeting that.

 

[feynoob]

Streaming a game you already own is no different to playing it on local hardware. I can stream game within my own home, I can set up a PC on the other side of the world and stream the games I own from it, there is nothing in the EULAs to stop me doing so.

You as a user can stream it. A company cant have the infracture to stream those games, without paying for streaming rights if they are charging those users. That is the issue here.
Nvidia is charging for their service, at expense of those games being streamed on their service.

No, when a game is sold to you you are entering into an agreement for the license of said copy of the game. That agreement is outlined in the EULA, at that point they categorically cannot "do what they want with it".

That is for you as a user. Not for other entities. Copy right exist for a reason. Companies wont allow their product to be played on other services, aside of the place where you bought it from.

Every time a piece of PC hardware is sold because a user wants to play a game on said piece of hardware its "theft". You heard it here first.

PC has store front. Not hardware. You play on those store front. Sreaming is a different service. It allows you to stream the games from another PC. But you dont own that service, as you have to pay access for it.

The only reason streaming is suddenly contentious is because most of the major publishers have their own streaming services (or are currently developing their own services) and want to force people to subscribe to those instead of using alternative services and/or utilising copies of games they've already purchased. Microsoft do exactly that. That is what is called restricting consumer choice. And that is exactly why regulators are looking at this deal with eyes wide open.

Now that you brought this point, why cant MS and Sony stream the games on their service? dont MS and Sony have the structure like nvidia?
You know the reason why they cant do that. They dont have the streaming rights for the games, which are being sold on their platform.

That is the issue with nvidia here. They dont have that. They cant go around and do that, considering Sony and MS cant even do that for their services.

 

[feynoob]

I didn't knew that jezz was working for kotaku.

That is just pure desperation from him.
Doesnt he know that MS doesnt care about his bootlicking? He doesnt even benefit from this deal. He is nobody.

Never seen this much bootlicking from someone.

 

[Three]

That is just pure desperation from him.
Doesnt he know that MS doesnt care about his bootlicking? He doesnt even benefit from this deal. He is nobody.

Never seen this much bootlicking from someone.

Depends who's funding WindowsCentral. Invites, sending products, interviews.



Guy has a boner for creating a MS cloud monopoly instead.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Some random thoughts:

• I no longer believe this deal is going through.
  • If it does, the concessions will be so absurd that MS will rue the day it decided to accept them.
• I think the hysterics over it are quite funny, but it's clear that MS's reputation from the Gates/Ballmer years still haunts it...and that's a huge problem.
• I pretty much envision MS going into to full troll mode once they abandon this effort.
  • This, sadly, will only worsen their reputation, but the head honchos will not be able to pass up any opportunity for revenge against Sony, Google and Nvidia...but mostly Sony.
• To compensate, MS will start swallowing up any and all IPs and small to mid-sized devs they can.

Also, it's time to push Phil Spencer out the door. The amount of devs they have who are sitting around playing with their dicks is just absurd. I wish I had a job there; no responsibility or accountability needed.

I don't think you realize the ramifications of a failed merger. Heads tend to roll. The reality is that leadership basically stakes their entire strategy around big M&A like this. Phil Spencer is almost certainly gone if this fails. The amount of time it takes to get the ball rolling on alternative strategies is just too much.

Spencer has almost certainly sold Nadella on the future of Xbox as GamePass and the future of GamePass as Activision Blizzard. Nadella has in turn sold this to the Microsoft Board. Nadella might survive because of how well he has done with O365 and Azure, but Spencer will be dead in the water. And the question shifts to what the future of GamePass and Xbox will be. I can tell you the Microsoft Board has no interest in 50-60 million consoles with limited market share as with the Xbox One. Spencer HIMSELF said Microsoft almost abandoned Xbox after the launch of the Xbox One.

Spencer sold Nadella on subscription revenue in the same vein as everything else is going at Microsoft and he has to deliver. If he convinced the board that Activision was a necessary purchase in order to fulfill what they wanted to do with GamePass, and trust me that is how he sold it otherwise the board doesn't throw 70 billion dollars into the pot, it's failure marks the end of Spencer and without Spencer, I don't know where Microsoft goes in gaming.

Ultimately, this deal needs to get done, and I think the industry will benefit from it, it'll certainly benefit more than it will if it falls through.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

When you purchase a game it doesn't matter, you have the right to play that game on one PC or hundreds of PCs, whether locally or virtually. There is nowhere in these EULAs that states you must own the piece of hardware you wish to play the game on. This is why there was an uproar when games initially started getting pulled from Geforce Now.

This feels wrong. The same applies to PC, your post just didn't choose to argue/include that -

• When you buy a PC title you cannot play that on just any PC, you must have hardware/performance/resolution limitations, sort of a thing the FTC are arguing with ActiBliz. There are even settings and performance "levels" or features present or entirely missing based on the PC/OS hardware/brand(s) you run e.g. physx or a litany of other proprietary hardware subsystems etc. Remember 3DFX or OpenGL or DLSS?
• You don't own a copy for consoles and PC etc. You likely don't have a streaming license built in either when buying on PC.
• Ecosystems such as Xbox same day launch on console, competitor consoles, PC, streaming etc (for the vast majority of games e.g. 95+% of MS titles for example). It's wider platform support than what "PC" games do.
• You don't have a multi-user license in most PC games cases e.g. two family members playing the same title on different PCs at the same house/connection. Xbox allows family members and a home/away console setting to enable multi-user licenses, cross platform in some cases even.
• PC games have exclusives and non-exclusives too e.g. PC games that never launch on a console or vice versa. They're the same in this hybrid reality of current gaming.
• They all have a ban/refusal/cancellation and act of god clauses, they're the same in these respects.
• There is no central ecosystem, security, privacy, standards e.g. no guarantess you owning a title of say COD even works in 10 years on console or PC. They shut the servers down and you might own the licence but have no way to actually play. This will grow more of a problem the longer gaming and online continues.
• Many subs have discounts to then owning the product as well, get to play without the launch margin but own the game outright at a sub/post launch sale price. Really not very different in the end to PC or console.
• The idea of generations and deprecation is the same e.g. N64 to Switch vs Disk to CD/DVD to Digital.

At the end of the day if you choose to buy a title, you own it. If you keep your hardware and game without future limitations due to online then you can keep playing it, irrespective of PC, console or any other.

EDIT: One could reasonably argue Xbox Gamepass Ultimate + buying discounted titles + Xbox support of devices and platforms to play games these days equates to a wider reach of ownership and ways to play longer than an exclusive PC title you bought? There are many cases, it's a bit much to generalise owning a game on PC is better than owning a game on console.

 

[GHG]

Also, it's time to push Phil Spencer out the door. The amount of devs they have who are sitting around playing with their dicks is just absurd. I wish I had a job there; no responsibility or accountability needed.

This is part of the reason why I actually want the deal to go through.

The situation they have on their hands in terms of studio management will be laid bare for all to see, there will be no more hiding.

Unfortunately the publishers have a way of making it an illegal activity. There is a good writeup about it here explaining how the publishers can challenge GFN. Nvidia can probably fight back on specific titles but it probably doesn't want to burn bridges for future titles and just complies.

They used the most scummy methodologies possible in order to restrict access to games on the service.

What Nvidia really needed was for customers of the games from those publishers in question to group together and fight back. The problem is, back then they didn't have enough users to do so effectively since the service was still in it's infancy.

You as a user can stream it. A company cant have the infracture to stream those games, without paying for streaming rights if they are charging those users. That is the issue here.
Nvidia is charging for their service, at expense of those games being streamed on their service.

That is for you as a user. Not for other entities. Copy right exist for a reason. Companies wont allow their product to be played on other services, aside of the place where you bought it from.


PC has store front. Not hardware. You play on those store front. Sreaming is a different service. It allows you to stream the games from another PC. But you dont own that service, as you have to pay access for it.

Now that you brought this point, why cant MS and Sony stream the games on their service? dont MS and Sony have the structure like nvidia?
You know the reason why they cant do that. They dont have the streaming rights for the games, which are being sold on their platform.

That is the issue with nvidia here. They dont have that. They cant go around and do that, considering Sony and MS cant even do that for their services.

I actually can't be bothered to respond to this properly because you clearly don't understand what PC gaming is. It is not a storefront. I've purchased games on storefronts and have never had to open the storefront I've purchased those games on ever again in order to play them. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're literally making things up as you go along. Sony and Microsoft can't just allow users to stream any game from their libraries because there are huge differences between console game EULAs and PC game EULAs. You might actually be surprised at how restrictive your rights are as a console gamer when it comes to digital licenses.

And by the way, the sticking point with publishers is not that Nvidia are charging for their service, far from it. If that were the case then they would also be going after services like Shadow PC who charge even more than Nvidia do for Geforce Now. You might want to familiarise yourself with why the publishers that did took issue and the events that led up to them removing their games from the service.

This feels wrong. The same applies to PC, your post just didn't choose to argue/include that -

• When you buy a PC title you cannot play that on just any PC, you must have hardware/performance/resolution limitations, sort of a thing the FTC are arguing with ActiBliz. There are even settings and performance "levels" or features present or entirely missing based on the PC/OS hardware/brand(s) you run e.g. physx or a litany of other proprietary hardware subsystems etc. Remember 3DFX or OpenGL or DLSS?
• You don't own a copy for consoles and PC etc. You likely don't have a streaming license built in either when buying on PC.
• Ecosystems such as Xbox same day launch on console, competitor consoles, PC, streaming etc (for the vast majority of games e.g. 95+% of MS titles for example). It's wider platform support than what "PC" games do.
• You don't have a multi-user license in most PC games cases e.g. two family members playing the same title on different PCs at the same house/connection. Xbox allows family members and a home/away console setting to enable multi-user licenses, cross platform in some cases even.
• PC games have exclusives and non-exclusives too e.g. PC games that never launch on a console or vice versa. They're the same in this hybrid reality of current gaming.
• They all have a ban/refusal/cancellation and act of god clauses, they're the same in these respects.
• There is no central ecosystem, security, privacy, standards e.g. no guarantess you owning a title of say COD even works in 10 years on console or PC. They shut the servers down and you might own the licence but have no way to actually play. This will grow more of a problem the longer gaming and online continues.
• Many subs have discounts to then owning the product as well, get to play without the launch margin but own the game outright at a sub/post launch sale price. Really not very different in the end to PC or console.
• The idea of generations and deprecation is the same e.g. N64 to Switch vs Disk to CD/DVD to Digital.

At the end of the day if you choose to buy a title, you own it. If you keep your hardware and game without future limitations due to online then you can keep playing it, irrespective of PC, console or any other.

Uh, none of this has anything to do with what I've been talking about but thanks for the effort (and partial Xbox ad) I guess.

 

[Chiggs]

Spencer sold Nadella on subscription revenue in the same vein as everything else is going at Microsoft and he has to deliver. If he convinced the board that Activision was a necessary purchase in order to fulfill what they wanted to do with GamePass, and trust me that is how he sold it otherwise the board doesn't throw 70 billion dollars into the pot, it's failure marks the end of Spencer and without Spencer, I don't know where Microsoft goes in gaming.

I appreciate the quality post, but my question to you is: "where has it gone with him?"

 

[Mibu no ookami]

I appreciate the quality post, but my question to you is: "where has it gone with him?"

I think he's created a new model for them and it is one they're much more likely to succeed with than their previous model.

 

[feynoob]

It is not a storefront.

I've purchased games on storefronts

Cant make this up.

 

[GHG]

Cant make this up.

Yeh because to be blunt, you need to stay in school.

I responded to this:

PC has store front. Not hardware. You play on those store front.

I literally tell you you can play games without using storefronts. And your response is "can't make this up"?

Try again.

 

[feynoob]

And by the way, the sticking point with publishers is not that Nvidia are charging for their service, far from it. If that were the case then they would also be going after services like Shadow PC who charge even more than Nvidia do for Geforce Now. You might want to familiarise yourself with why the publishers that did took issue and the events that led up to them removing their games from the service.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/nvidia/geforce-now-publishers-developers-love-hate#:~:text=Another reason why publishers might,be good for its sales.

Also, why should a publisher care whether Nvidia is leveraging its games to get a profit? It’s not selling the game, and the only way it can affect a game’s sales figures is either positively or not at all. This is what has led some to view the publishers that have removed games from the service as greedy, wanting a slice of a pie that was never really theirs to begin with. But we shouldn’t be too strong on this line, either, because Nvidia wouldn’t be able to offer its service without these games, and hasn’t even given a token offering to devs. Whichever side of the fence you’re on, it’s not cut-and-dry.

We can make an argument for both side of the coin here.

These arguments, and the knowledge that licensing agreements in the age of digital media makes for muddy water, goes some way towards explaining just why publishers might be so divided on their opinions of GeForce Now. On the one hand, Nvidia is clearly making money via games from developers that haven’t given the green light for the service. On the other hand, it’s not causing any losses in sales, and there are good arguments to be made for GeForce Now being less of a traditional streaming service and more of a ‘rent-a-PC’ service.

Difference between shadow pc and Nvidia

Plus, let’s not forget that GeForce Now actually acts as more of a Stadia-esque middleman, unlike Shadow, despite it still being very much ‘rent-a-PC’ under the hood.

The argument with nvidia is basically them acting as middle man, while shadow is just rent a pc. Nvidia allows you to play your owned games, and that causes legal arguments with other publishers, who are not getting benefit from nvidia action. While shadow is just a pc front.

 

[feynoob]

Yeh because to be blunt, you need to stay in school.

I responded to this:



I literally tell you you can play games without using storefronts. And your response is "can't make this up"?

Try again.

You buy games from store front, in order to play them. All store front are on the same PC, which you are using to play your games on.

Streaming is different than storefront.

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Uh, none of this has anything to do with what I've been talking about but thanks for the effort (and partial Xbox ad) I guess.

This was your post mate?

What the fuck are you on about? Of course Nvidia benefit from publishers and developers creating games. They are a hardware supplier. Them, AMD, Intel and the countless other hardware vendors in the PC building space benefit every time games are released and purchased by customers. Without these companies there is no way for PC gamers to be able to even play these games. Every industry has sub-industries that benefit, and usually these relationships are symbiotic - without one there cannot be the other.

When you purchase a game it doesn't matter, you have the right to play that game on one PC or hundreds of PCs, whether locally or virtually. There is nowhere in these EULAs that states you must own the piece of hardware you wish to play the game on. This is why there was an uproar when games initially started getting pulled from Geforce Now.

The greedy mentality of trying to nickel and dime every PC game purchase in order to profit from things like install limits etc was exactly the reason why it almost went under in the 2000's.

If they want to restrict their customers from playing the PC games they've purchased via services like Geforce Now or even Shadow PC (which they have no way of restricting by the way, even gamepass works on that service, so good luck) then it's simple, customers who wish to use virtual PC cloud streaming services wont purchase their games at all. Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face, especially in the case of publishers who don't even offer their own streaming alternative.

You don't think my reply was on the money? Ok, cool. I'll stop replying here but fuck me dude I highlighted my relevant points.

Also, what I was assuming you'd read between the lines was what Xbox are going for holistically; an open platform that allows gamers to play or own more games in more places. I'm not advertising for Xbox, it's just the reality of how they structured their company(s) and the long game to be where there are currently and heading with Xbox. If you don't think what I posted is just what Xbox saw and moved on for the market/segments over a 5+ years plan, I don't know what to tell you. It paints a clearer picture of your mindset around Xbox and gaming in general (not one I agree with mate).

I like some of what Sony does, love some of what Nintendo does. I play on Ninty, PC, mobile and Xbox. Not sure why people think I'm limited to Xbox. I've been gaming since monochromatic text-based games, Xbox wasn't even around, LOL.

 

[bitbydeath]

Was this because of NVIDIA?

Did Microsoft break its promise to the EU about Bethesda exclusives? | For The Record

For The Record is a new GamesIndustry.biz format where we offer clarification around some of the biggest stories affect…

www.gamesindustry.biz

 

[feynoob]

Was this because of NVIDIA?

http://[URL]https://www.gamesindust...e-eu-about-bethesda-exclusives-for-the-record

[/URL]

Not the same thing.

 

[bitbydeath]

Not the same thing.

Same complaint, just wonder if it was related.

 

[freefornow]

I didn't knew that jezz was working for kotaku.

Taking off my Green Rat Club badge and putting it away in the drawer for the day.
I can't even!

 

[BennyBlanco]

That is just pure desperation from him.
Doesnt he know that MS doesnt care about his bootlicking? He doesnt even benefit from this deal. He is nobody.

Never seen this much bootlicking from someone.

It’s a fake tweet, not sure why that guy posted it. His tweets are cringey enough on their own without posting fake ones.

 

[DarkMage619]

That's what you believe. You think the CMA and FTC are ignorant, others don't. I'm saying what makes you believe the EC don't consider market segments too when they investigate? I think the EC are less likely to challenge due to marketshare but it doesn't mean they don't consider market segments.

Yes me and most learned legal minds think the CMA and FTC have presented specious arguments. Certain fans in particular seem to suddenly find merit in removing Nintendo from the market yet incidentally continue to claim Xbox is in third place. Very curious.

With regard to EC I have made no claim about their deliberations other than acknowledging them not removing Nintendo from the market. If they suddenly do so they too are ignorant of the video game industry they are trying to regulate.

I can't believe the ridiculousness of this statement. You think Valve had to convince MS to put their titles on steam? It's there because the players are there and those players didn't care about the Windows store. It's not that MS didn't try to exclude steam. They did. MS tried going Windows Store exclusive for a long time then saw its games weren't selling at all there.

My point is that MS has put their IP on platforms they do not own. If Nvidia is worried about getting access to certain content they can contact MS and work out a deal. MS more than any other platform holder is will to put their content in numerous places. The only thing ridiculous is denying that reality.

Nvidia has the best streaming so it has nothing to do with a compelling product. It is suffering from content but Ubisoft and EA have no problem offering their games on GFN. Activision and Bethesda pulled their titles and now will likely never have them on there. Rockstar pulled theirs and got Stadia money for RDR2. How much do you want to bet Rockstar show up on other streaming platforms again like GFN or PS Premium within 1.5 yrs bar an acquisition but the other two won't?

If Nvidia has no issues with providing a compelling product they have nothing to worry about do they? You've already pointed out other companies have pulled games from GeForce Now so thats hardly MS' fault. I don't really care what they do in the future it has little relevance to what Xbox has planned with this acquisition. MS has not stopped their customers from accessing GeForce Now on Xbox and offers their content on competing platforms which is more than what other platform holders are doing.

 

[Clintizzle]

This was your post mate?



You don't think my reply was on the money? Ok, cool. I'll stop replying here but fuck me dude I highlighted my relevant points.

Also, what I was assuming you'd read between the lines was what Xbox are going for holistically; an open platform that allows gamers to play or own more games in more places. I'm not advertising for Xbox, it's just the reality of how they structured their company(s) and the long game to be where there are currently and heading with Xbox. If you don't think what I posted is just what Xbox saw and moved on for the market/segments over a 5+ years plan, I don't know what to tell you. It paints a clearer picture of your mindset around Xbox and gaming in general (not one I agree with mate).

I like some of what Sony does, love some of what Nintendo does. I play on Ninty, PC, mobile and Xbox. Not sure why people think I'm limited to Xbox. I've been gaming since monochromatic text-based games, Xbox wasn't even around, LOL.

This GHG dude had such a hate boner for Xbox or maybe just Microsoft that it's actually a waste of time arguing.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Regardless of the outcome, the good thing is that Microsoft now understand that Sony fucking hates them, and will do any and everything it can do to fuck them over. Microsoft can now cut the koombiya shit out and play to win.
Give Xbox Minecraft exclusive DLC etc.
Spend up and get GTA6 marketing rights, buy up IO, Certain Afinity, Asobo, Edios, Crystal Dynamics, Avalanche etc.
Without a doubt Sony has also driven a wedge between them and Activision, so Microsoft should do a deal to give them exclusive access to future COD games.

Every action has a reaction, and Sony will pay a price for their actions here.
Most of ABK had nothing to do with PS. King is all about Mobile, Activision is 90% COD which MS would have kept on PS anyway, and Blizzard is PC centric.

As I have said before, I want more exclusive content on both consoles. I want Sony to buy more studios. I hope they buy Square even.
Hopefully this will make the competition between the two of them even greater.

 

[feynoob]

It’s a fake tweet, not sure why that guy posted it. His tweets are cringey enough on their own without posting fake ones.

ChorizoPicozo why make me respond to fake news

at least post this one.

 

[sainraja]

EDIT
lol, was a fake it seems.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

EDIT
lol, was a fake it seems.

you and me know is actually no Fake

 

[feynoob]

I dont know how much lies I believed at this point, if this simple tactic can work on us.

The future is looking bleak.

 

[gothmog]

Regardless of the outcome, the good thing is that Microsoft now understand that Sony fucking hates them, and will do any and everything it can do to fuck them over. Microsoft can now cut the koombiya shit out and play to win.
Give Xbox Minecraft exclusive DLC etc.
Spend up and get GTA6 marketing rights, buy up IO, Certain Afinity, Asobo, Edios, Crystal Dynamics, Avalanche etc.
Without a doubt Sony has also driven a wedge between them and Activision, so Microsoft should do a deal to give them exclusive access to future COD games.

Every action has a reaction, and Sony will pay a price for their actions here.
Most of ABK had nothing to do with PS. King is all about Mobile, Activision is 90% COD which MS would have kept on PS anyway, and Blizzard is PC centric.

As I have said before, I want more exclusive content on both consoles. I want Sony to buy more studios. I hope they buy Square even.
Hopefully this will make the competition between the two of them even greater.

Sony hasn't said anything about this in months. All of this shit flinging is Microsoft FUD. And you're eating it up by the handful.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

I'm an xbox fan buttttt man that guy is cringy

He's quite obviously not being serious.

 

[Topher]

ChorizoPicozo why make me respond to fake news

at least post this one.

That one is almost as bad as the fake one. I should have known the other was fake. Who forces themselves to use Bing?

 

[Ozzy Onya A2Z]

Regardless of the outcome, the good thing is that Microsoft now understand that Sony fucking hates them, and will do any and everything it can do to fuck them over. Microsoft can now cut the koombiya shit out and play to win.

I think they'll forget the olive branches and just support the default for Sony (allowed or blocked), revenue is revenue. Money doesn't give a shit if you're a red plumber, blue god of war or green space marine or roaming thumb warrior or play with mice.

The interesting part is MS didn't offer Sony this strategy/option for some buddy bullshit. They did it to get access to 50% of COD players via Sony. Even if MS gains 20% or something of that Sony slice they're laughing. Phil put Jimbo in a lose-lose and himself in a win-win, the degrees of success or failures are yet to be determined. I just don't see a win-win for Sony or regulators. All of that between Sony and MS is the sideshow. The larger show starts this year.

 

[In Cold Blood]

Sony hasn't said anything about this in months. All of this shit flinging is Microsoft FUD. And you're eating it up by the handful.

You don't think Microsoft would be pissed at Sony over this? If this doesn't go through it will cost MS 2-3 billion plus costs.
That's not going to be forgiven.
And Sony said all they needed to do months ago.
If Sony hadn't of gone against the acquisition like they did, it would have already passed.