Support NeoGAF

[RoadHazard]

The only people who seem to have a problem with him are those who don't own an Xbox or gaming capable PC.

My problem is with him always wanting to seem like this cool gamer dude who justs wants everyone to have fun and play together no matter what plattform they're on, but then doing things that completely contradict his sweet, sweet whispers.

 

[Infamy v1]

holy moly.

What happens to xbox hardware when every single microsoft game goes on Playstation? That's right, it's dead! They couldn't just put some galf-arsed streaming gamepass on Playstation, it would have to be native apps. Full multiplatform. Meaning Sony would have a monopoly be default. How are you not seeing this? Then Microsoft would have give Sony 30% of everything. Which could easily increase when they are Sonys mercy once xbox has been extinguished.

Pretending that you have done business classes in a better establishment than a community college donesn't mean shit when what you are saying is nonsense.

Like @Topher said, the whole premise is absurd.

Piggybacking off another user doesn't add credence to your post.

Look, I wouldn't want Game Pass on PlayStation. You're preaching to the choir here. Sony fanboys have spent the better part of a decade telling Xbox fans to buy a PlayStation to play exclusives, so PlayStation gamers can simply buy an Xbox if they want Xbox Game Pass, a PC if they want PC Game Pass, or stream it if they don't need a native version for all I care.

The thing I find hilarious is that the entire premise about Game Pass/PlayStation has always been, from here to Era and everywhere in between, that Sony would never allow it for obvious reasons, despite Phil being "open to discussions" for obvious reasons. Like, this shit isn't even coming from left field. It's a common sentiment.

Framing it as if Phil is just "talking shit," that the real reason is it would kill Xbox and Sony would "reign supreme," and that it would give Sony a monopoly (wrong use of the term there, bud), is bullshit. That's why Sony has been quiet on the subject despite having an open invitation to publicly respond the many times journalists have asked them about it ever since Phil said he was "open to discussions." Wouldn't it be the easiest W in history? Instead Sony is doubling down to make their own competitor (or attempting to) so that they're not left in the dust.

Call of Duty, Fifa, Madden, 2K, etc. All at the top of Sonys best selling games EVERY year which we know that is how they make most of their money. All of that will be on Game Pass along with a plethora of other titles. And aside from all of that, what's stopping Microsoft from backing up a Brinks truck to secure more 3rd party AAA titles? All of which would be a detriment to Sony if their own gamers can pay Microsoft $15/month to play those titles. The revenue lost would be astronomical.

Like I said, and the only thing I agree with @Topher with, none of this matters because it will never happen. But I will add that it would be far more crippling to Sony then it would Microsoft. Again, common sentiment that I've seen parroted a thousand times. Don't know why it's so hard to grasp.

 

[Sosokrates]

No, I mean it is confusing because, as you said, MS hasn't been on "one device" in a long time and these were forward looking statements. The article seems to be summarizing a lot of what was said outside of direct quotes. And.....I just don't trust Bloomberg.

Oh I see, well companies and media will repeat stuff.

 

[Sosokrates]

the fewer exclusives part could have been its own thread...

Yeah if gas lighting is the objective.

 

[Leyasu]

Piggybacking off another user doesn't add credence to your post.

Look, I wouldn't want Game Pass on PlayStation. You're preaching to the choir here. Sony fanboys have spent the better part of a decade telling Xbox fans to buy a PlayStation to play exclusives, so PlayStation gamers can simply buy an Xbox if they want Xbox Game Pass, a PC if they want PC Game Pass, or stream it if they don't need a native version for all I care.

The thing I find hilarious is that the entire premise about Game Pass/PlayStation has always been, from here to Era and everywhere in between, that Sony would never allow it for obvious reasons, despite Phil being "open to discussions" for obvious reasons. Like, this shit isn't even coming from left field. It's a common sentiment.

Framing it as if Phil is just "talking shit," that the real reason is it would kill Xbox and Sony would "reign supreme," and that it would give Sony a monopoly (wrong use of the term there, bud), is bullshit. That's why Sony has been quiet on the subject despite having an open invitation to publicly respond the many times journalists have asked them about it ever since Phil said he was "open to discussions." Wouldn't it be the easiest W in history? Instead Sony is doubling down to make their own competitor (or attempting to) so that they're not left in the dust.

Call of Duty, Fifa, Madden, 2K, etc. All at the top of Sonys best selling games EVERY year which we know that is how they make most of their money. All of that will be on Game Pass along with a plethora of other titles. And aside from all of that, what's stopping Microsoft from backing up a Brinks truck to secure more 3rd party AAA titles? All of which would be a detriment to Sony if their own gamers can pay Microsoft $15/month to play those titles. The revenue lost would be astronomical.

Like I said, and the only thing I agree with @Topher with, none of this matters because it will never happen. But I will add that it would be far more crippling to Sony then it would Microsoft. Again, common sentiment that I've seen parroted a thousand times. Don't know why it's so hard to grasp.

I dont need to piggyback off of anyone. But you think that becuase other people on other forums think like you gives credance to yours...

If going multi was the best strategy and would give them massive amounts of revenue, why have they not already done it? Do you think that Sony would turn down 30% of all microsofts games sales and GP revenue AND removing a competing hardware in the process? Yep, I can see them refusing that for sure.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. You ain’t getting it.

 

[johnjohn]

Nice, sounds like the deal is almost done. I wonder who'll they get next, Sega seems like an obvious choice.

 

[Infamy v1]

I dont need to piggyback off of anyone.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. You ain’t getting it.

> says has nothing to add to the discussion
> proceeds to edit his post with a bunch of added discussion

Agree to disagree, then.

 

[Ozriel]

My problem is with him always wanting to seem like this cool gamer dude who justs wants everyone to have fun and play together no matter what plattform they're on, but then doing things that completely contradict his sweet, sweet whispers.

Starfield is single player anyway, so ‘playing together’ was never an option

Nothing he’s doing contradicts what he says, though. You can play xbox games on console, PC and hardware agnostic cloud streaming.
He’s also done nothing to contradict his stance on cross-platform play for third party MP games.

 

[Leyasu]

> says has nothing to add to the discussion
> proceeds to edit his post with a bunch of added discussion

Agree to disagree, then.

read my edit

 

[Infamy v1]

read my edit

 

[DarkMage619]

My problem is with him always wanting to seem like this cool gamer dude who justs wants everyone to have fun and play together no matter what plattform they're on, but then doing things that completely contradict his sweet, sweet whispers.

No other platform holder is doing what he's doing with Xbox. Even Starfield doesn't require you to buy an Xbox to play it. If you have xCloud it's possible you won't even need a PC either. Until another platform is offering more he's doing more to get people to play together than anyone else. There is nothing contrary to his comments.

 

[JLB]

Yes, and it's great.

What does this have to do with Sony?

Sony being the biggest player on the console space and doing just what Phil Spencer is predicting, is pretty telling, right?

 

[RoadHazard]

No other platform holder is doing what he's doing with Xbox. Even Starfield doesn't require you to buy an Xbox to play it. If you have xCloud it's possible you won't even need a PC either. Until another platform is offering more he's doing more to get people to play together than anyone else. There is nothing contrary to his comments.

You're right, no other platform holder is buying up massive publishers to take their games away from the competition.

 

[Jimmyisback]

Fantastic news for Xbox. Git er don.

 

[ErRor88]

Videos of the article are coming out.

 

[drganon]

Nice, sounds like the deal is almost done. I wonder who'll they get next, Sega seems like an obvious choice.

Xbox fans: Monopolies are great!

 

[drganon]

My problem is with him always wanting to seem like this cool gamer dude who justs wants everyone to have fun and play together no matter what plattform they're on, but then doing things that completely contradict his sweet, sweet whispers.

Phil Spencer being a two faced twat? Color me surprised.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Sony being the biggest player on the console space and doing just what Phil Spencer is predicting, is pretty telling, right?

What’s it telling?

That companies live for growth and they know they have to continue said growth beholden to their shareholders? Amazing!

 

[MScarpa]

As long as I'm eating, day 1 on GP, I don't care WHAT happens with anything. Give me games!!!

 

[Lasha]

I dont need to piggyback off of anyone. But you think that becuase other people on other forums think like you gives credance to yours...

If going multi was the best strategy and would give them massive amounts of revenue, why have they not already done it? Do you think that Sony would turn down 30% of all microsofts games sales and GP revenue AND removing a competing hardware in the process? Yep, I can see them refusing that for sure.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. You ain’t getting it.

Consider the average gamer who is primarily a COD or FIFA player. They are thrilled subscribe to gamepass for PS5 and get their main game plus Microsoft titles, and other major third party titles for $15 per month. What incentive is there to buy a PS6 if Microsoft can offer them a console and help them save on ps+ without any loss of progression or service?

A gamepass user on PC or another console is still a Microsoft customer. Sony does not want it's customers to disassociate games from its brand. That's why Sony would be wary of any competing service.

 

[DavidGzz]

Fewer exclusives. lmao. Rich coming from a man who paid $8 billion to make Starfield exclusive.

When it's convenient people say Xbox has no exclusives since the games come to PC, when it isn't they say they are exclusives. lol

 

[DeepEnigma]

When it's convenient people say Xbox has no exclusives since the games come to PC, when it isn't they say they are exclusives. lol

Both sides are literally see sawing on this now.

 

[adamsapple]

As long as I'm eating, day 1 on GP, I don't care WHAT happens with anything. Give me games!!!

We eating good, fam.

 

[DeepEnigma]

We eating good, fam.

But… but he’s at a Waffle House.

 

[adamsapple]

But… but he’s at a Waffle House.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

There are indeed going to be fewer and fewer exclusives to one device.

 

[Lupin25]

I dont need to piggyback off of anyone. But you think that becuase other people on other forums think like you gives credance to yours...

If going multi was the best strategy and would give them massive amounts of revenue, why have they not already done it? Do you think that Sony would turn down 30% of all microsofts games sales and GP revenue AND removing a competing hardware in the process? Yep, I can see them refusing that for sure.

I have nothing more to add to this discussion. You ain’t getting it.

I agree with this.

There wouldn’t be an incentive to own Xbox (I’m not talking PC just consoles) if all of its exclusives on Gamepass go to PS where the bigger install base is, along with a 30% cut.

And yes, Sony doesn’t want it, mainly due to loss in 3rd party sales. They wouldn’t do it on their sub service either. They want as many game sales as possible, which is why there’s no day & date currently on PS+.

Consider the average gamer who is primarily a COD or FIFA player. They are thrilled subscribe to gamepass for PS5 and get their main game plus Microsoft titles, and other major third party titles for $15 per month. What incentive is there to buy a PS6 if Microsoft can offer them a console and help them save on ps+ without any loss of progression or service?

A gamepass user on PC or another console is still a Microsoft customer. Sony does not want it's customers to disassociate games from its brand. That's why Sony would be wary of any competing service.

PS has a bigger ecosystem, why would someone play the game on another platform their friends are playing? COD is mainly MP. (And “FIFA” is no longer EA’s nor is it part of MS’ would-be acquisition?)

You also don’t own anything. You’re actually paying more over time to play the game on a sub service. $15/5 mth of play is already more than its OG pricetag for that “one” game you signed up for lol.

 

[Lasha]

I agree with this.

There wouldn’t be an incentive to own Xbox if all of its exclusives on Gamepass go to PS, along with a 30% cut.

And yes, Sony doesn’t want it, mainly due to loss in 3rd party sales. They wouldn’t do it on their sub service either. They want as many game sales as possible, which is why there’s no day & date currently on PS+.



PS has a bigger ecosystem, why would someone play the game on another platform their friends are playing? COD is mainly MP. (And “FIFA” is no longer EA’s nor is it part of MS’ would-be acquisition?)

You also don’t own anything. You’re actually paying more over time to play the game on a sub service. $15/5 mth of play is already more than its OG pricetag for that “one” game you signed up for lol.

You're out of touch. Cross play has been a thing for major third parties for a long time now. Sony was actually one of the last big holdouts blocking the feature for the same reasons it would stay away from Gamepass. Choice of console will continue to become increasingly irrelevant as time passes.

 

[Ozriel]

You're right, no other platform holder is buying up massive publishers to take their games away from the competition.

Nintendo’s pretty much the only console maker not spending money to purchase exclusivity for their console.

Xbox fans: Monopolies are great!

Do you even know what a monopoly is?

 

[Lupin25]

You're out of touch. Cross play has been a thing for major third parties for a long time now. Sony was actually one of the last big holdouts blocking the feature for the same reasons it would stay away from Gamepass. Choice of console will continue to become increasingly irrelevant as time passes.

Sure, cross play is a thing, but I’m referring to someone uprooting from their entire ecosystem (with friends list, library, trophies, etc.) just to switch to the lesser install base for a couple months of a cheaper deal on gamepass?

It won’t. As long as consoles and exclusives exist, at least. Sony & Nintendo aren’t making less exclusives whatsoever from what we can tell. They depend on the hardware sales. They’re profiting a ton.