• 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.

Xbox boss Phil Spencer asks fans not to "weaponise" games for "battles between platforms"

Boglin

Member
Then, what is the point of their purchase?
Sony isn't putting any of their acquired studios games on xbox, same for Nintendo. So why should MS do this natively.
They have been very clear about it. If you have gamepass, you will get those games natively, if your system can handle it.

Microsoft would still get the majority of the sale's profit, same as any other 3rd party.
My bad though, I didn't know Sony and Nintendo also claimed to be reaching more gamers by buying exclusivity. If that's the case then they are hypocrites too, just like Microsoft.

Sorry, I chose my language poorly. What I meant by natively was your can buy the game specifically for that console. They could still sell the games on playstation discs and Nintendo cartridges, and their respective digital stores.


Then MS shouldn't be blamed for not putting games on their system. Sony isn't willing to accept gamepass on their system. Its either gamepass, or no to these games individually. MS has no obligation to bend over for Sony.



MS spent $7.5b on bethesda, and now $68.7b on Activision/Blizzard. They want return of their investments. They aren't running a charity business.

My point was that it's not really an option for Sony to put gamepass on their console because it would tank their business. You seem to understand that Microsoft isn't running a charity but don't treat Sony the same. Sony makes their money on software sales, not hardware. Microsoft's offer to put gamepass on Playstation is offering Sony a knife to slice their own throats.

Microsoft is being blamed because this is the direct result Microsoft buying studios and taking away games that would have otherwise been on their platforms.

Now before you go on a tangent about how it's Sony bought exclusives too, I agree with you. Sony is also being a hypocrite when they said they were buying exclusives to reach more players, like you implied.

Sony/Nintendo won't lose as much money as MS, since they will gain more users and make their device very strong, on top of their exclusives. The only loser here is MS, which will lose people who will have bought Xbox because of their exclusives.

Sony would stop making any money on the 3rd party games that they used to but would still be taking the same loss from their subsidized hardware. It's a net loss for Sony.
Microsoft would now be making money selling software on other devices, not needing to sell their own subsidized Xbox consoles and so they would NOT be taking a loss on hardware.

Outside of Nintendo, the software is where all the money is in the console business and that's what Microsoft's goal is to corner with gamepass.
 

Scotty W

Member
That’s rich coming from a Microsoft employee, who, as we know, is funding the Russian military at the moment.
 

Dane

Member
Companies decades ago (time passes) decided to no longer use attacking ads because it was creating the irony issue when they weren't on the lead, it was also mostly used by Sega. 3DO and Atari than Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo, in other words, being used by companies with a glass ceiling. It was also an internal issue when it came with the relationships between console maker and developers, Nintendo used to force exclusivity at their high heels and even made clear relationship burns when Square was forbidden to step in their headquarters for years, in other words, company loyalism, this silly shit still exists to car manufacturers where workers cannot use the company's parking lot if they are driving a car from a different brand.
 

kingfey

Banned
Microsoft would still get the majority of the sale's profit, same as any other 3rd party.
My bad though, I didn't know Sony and Nintendo also claimed to be reaching more gamers by buying exclusivity. If that's the case then they are hypocrites too, just like Microsoft.

Sorry, I chose my language poorly. What I meant by natively was your can buy the game specifically for that console. They could still sell the games on playstation discs and Nintendo cartridges, and their respective digital stores.
You are effectively telling them to become 3rd party, which defeats the purpose of xbox console. MS still has xbox to sell. Plus games arent tied to 1 system.
If you want to play those games on those systems, you will still need to buy ps5, which cost $400-$500 or switch $200-$350. MS wouldnt reach alot of gamers that way.
Cloud, while still at infant stage, requires internet, controller and device which has a browser or xcloud app. Gamers from those systems, can access this cloud gaming device for $15 and have those games at their disposal. Nothing stops them from getting it.

If you are a MS/Phil, you will see the later has the potential to reach more gamers. Since the internet right now is available everywhere, and most games requires high amount of data to download games, which is alot compared to streaming data. Plus they arent requiring you to have a console to play them.

Here is stadia data usage
How much data does Stadia use per hour?
OptionsResolutionData usage
Limited data usageUp to 720pUp to 4.5 GB/hr
BalancedUp to 1080pUp to 12.6 GB/hr
Best visual quality (Stadia Pro only)Up to 4KUp to 20 GB/hr

The internet is unlimited in most states here, and around the world. If you have 1tb data cap, you can play streaming games for 50 hour at 4k maximum streaming. That is almost 1.6 hour every day.

My point was that it's not really an option for Sony to put gamepass on their console because it would tank their business. You seem to understand that Microsoft isn't running a charity but don't treat Sony the same. Sony makes their money on software sales, not hardware. Microsoft's offer to put gamepass on Playstation is offering Sony a knife to slice their own throats.
Isnt MS doing the same too, if they put their games on Sony systems? There is no win here. Both systems will lose something.
If MS puts their bethesda/activision/blizzard games on Sony systems, they will lose the appeal for xbox, while strengthening Sony systems. Which makes the purchase worthless. Gamepass is their middle ground. This will lesser the loss, which MS will incur from this deal. It also appeases PS users, who will get those games.

Microsoft is being blamed because this is the direct result Microsoft buying studios and taking away games that would have otherwise been on their platforms.

Now before you go on a tangent about how it's Sony bought exclusives too, I agree with you. Sony is also being a hypocrite when they said they were buying exclusives to reach more players, like you implied.
There is no contract that says, these games belong to these systems. People are simply mad, because MS, who has bigger money did what other companies use to do, at a bigger scale. They have been quite, while these companies have been doing these stuff all the time. Companies pay other companies to make those games exclusive to their system. It happened at the start of gaming.

Sony would stop making any money on the 3rd party games that they used to but would still be taking the same loss from their subsidized hardware. It's a net loss for Sony.
Microsoft would now be making money selling software on other devices, not needing to sell their own subsidized Xbox consoles and so they would NOT be taking a loss on hardware.
That doesnt make sense at all. Only reason people buy PlayStation is because they have games, which other systems dont have. If xbox had the same games as playstation, bar their exclusives, do you think we will see alot the gap between these 2 consoles?
And why MS wouldnt lose money on Xbox? What logic is that? They made $15b in 2020, selling 3rd party games. They will lose tons of those money, if they keep losing their games to other systems. There are tons of 3rd party games, which is still exclusive to those systems.

Persona series, which isnt on xbox, other japanese games, FF mainline games, FF14 which is still PlayStation exclusive mmo. Plus other 3rd party games, which will never hit xbox at all.

Gaming isnt fair. Each company is looking after their consoles. Right now, only Xbox wants to share their games with pc day1, or people who have no console. Yet gamers are angry at MS.
 
He opened xbox to other platforms, which nintendo and sony arent doing it.

So Bethesda didn't previously launch their games on PC and PS pre-MS buyout? What are you even arguing at this point.

You can play those games on PC. You dont need to buy xbox to play them. If sony bought those studios, you will have to buy PlayStation consoles to play them.
I can pay $15 and play them on a browser through cloud streaming.

Plus 3rd party games were always restricted from other platforms. Xbox players cant play persona series aside of few titles. FF7R is exclusive to PlayStation. Nintendo has bayonetta 3 exclusive to its platform.

This isnt something, which Phil is limiting. This has been happening all through out the industry. You just want to hold standard to xbox only, while ignoring other platforms.


I guess you have been sleep through out the gaming industry history. Or from 2015-2020 went out of your memory, where xbox lost some iconic 3rd party games.

You are straw-manning and moving the goalposts because the argument here is about Phil Spencer's hypocrisy, not whether games have been made exclusive by anyone in the past.

You're being disingenuous simply because you refuse the admit the obvious that Phil is indeed being hypocritical. This level of ardent, fallacious defence for something so obvious is startling and not a good look for you, kingfey.

Phil is being hypocritical. It's clear. Nothing you've said in his defence contradicts the fact. In the end, does it even matter? No. Should we care? Of course not. So let's move on and end this fruitless back and forth that's going nowhere.
 

isoRhythm

Banned
All this tells us is that Cerny is a better gamer than the majority of people on this forum.

Also calling out hypocrisy is not console warring... Remember it's all just corpo speak. Stfu and just release games. The only people who should be interviewed are the ones MAKING the games.
 

kingfey

Banned
So Bethesda didn't previously launch their games on PC and PS pre-MS buyout? What are you even arguing at this point.
They launched their games there. MS didnt take those games away. Ps5 have 1 year timed access to deathloop, and ghost wire tokyo, while xbox users cant get those games right now. Bethesda migrated their games to steam, and are closing their launcher. They still support PC, and are doing day1 pc launches.
So what is your point?

You are straw-manning and moving the goalposts because the argument here is about Phil Spencer's hypocrisy, not whether games have been made exclusive by anyone in the past.
Phil delivered his words. You guys are just twisting his words. Name me a company, which shares their console games day1 with pc, and can let you access those games, without needing a console?

You're being disingenuous simply because you refuse the admit the obvious that Phil is indeed being hypocritical. This level of ardent, fallacious defence for something so obvious is startling and not a good look for you, kingfey.
Again, tell me, where Phil is wrong with his words? Instead of acting like he lied to you. Show me the evidence, where he is making users buy xbox consoles to play those games?

Phil is being hypocritical. It's clear. Nothing you've said in his defence contradicts the fact. In the end, does it even matter? No. Should we care? Of course not. So let's move on and end this fruitless back and forth that's going nowhere.
You are just looking at straws at this point. If you cant see his point clear, then I cant help you with that.
 

Boglin

Member
You are effectively telling them to become 3rd party, which defeats the purpose of xbox console. MS still has xbox to sell. Plus games arent tied to 1 system.
If you want to play those games on those systems, you will still need to buy ps5, which cost $400-$500 or switch $200-$350. MS wouldnt reach alot of gamers that way.
Cloud, while still at infant stage, requires internet, controller and device which has a browser or xcloud app. Gamers from those systems, can access this cloud gaming device for $15 and have those games at their disposal. Nothing stops them from getting it.

If you are a MS/Phil, you will see the later has the potential to reach more gamers. Since the internet right now is available everywhere, and most games requires high amount of data to download games, which is alot compared to streaming data. Plus they arent requiring you to have a console to play them.

Here is stadia data usage
How much data does Stadia use per hour?
OptionsResolutionData usage
Limited data usageUp to 720pUp to 4.5 GB/hr
BalancedUp to 1080pUp to 12.6 GB/hr
Best visual quality (Stadia Pro only)Up to 4KUp to 20 GB/hr

The internet is unlimited in most states here, and around the world. If you have 1tb data cap, you can play streaming games for 50 hour at 4k maximum streaming. That is almost 1.6 hour every day.


Isnt MS doing the same too, if they put their games on Sony systems? There is no win here. Both systems will lose something.
If MS puts their bethesda/activision/blizzard games on Sony systems, they will lose the appeal for xbox, while strengthening Sony systems. Which makes the purchase worthless. Gamepass is their middle ground. This will lesser the loss, which MS will incur from this deal. It also appeases PS users, who will get those games.


There is no contract that says, these games belong to these systems. People are simply mad, because MS, who has bigger money did what other companies use to do, at a bigger scale. They have been quite, while these companies have been doing these stuff all the time. Companies pay other companies to make those games exclusive to their system. It happened at the start of gaming.

My response to the entire first part of this that I don't think Microsoft should become 3rd party or change their current plans. I was only mentioning a hypothetical way that would alleviate them of hypocrisy because then they would actually be reaching more players without removing current ones.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you when you keep making assumptions about me. I was talking about your issue with people saying Microsoft are hypocrites. I don't know why you keep going off on all these huge tangents.

That doesnt make sense at all. Only reason people buy PlayStation is because they have games, which other systems dont have. If xbox had the same games as playstation, bar their exclusives, do you think we will see alot the gap between these 2 consoles?

Sony would lose money because now instead of them getting a cut on 3rd party games, Microsoft is getting all of the profits through gamepass. Sony's first party games make them money and are a reason to buy their console vs another console that doesn't have their games.

If somebody likes Playstation exclusives enough to buy a Playstation over an Xbox, then they will be buying 3rd plarty games on Playstation too, making Sony money. Gamepass circumvents Sony's business model and would put them out of business, unless you believe Sony could survive solely on first party games.

And why MS wouldnt lose money on Xbox? What logic is that? They made $15b in 2020, selling 3rd party games. They will lose tons of those money, if they keep losing their games to other systems. There are tons of 3rd party games, which is still exclusive to those systems.

Persona series, which isnt on xbox, other japanese games, FF mainline games, FF14 which is still PlayStation exclusive mmo. Plus other 3rd party games, which will never hit xbox at all.

Gaming isnt fair. Each company is looking after their consoles. Right now, only Xbox wants to share their games with pc day1, or people who have no console. Yet gamers are angry at MS.

Microsoft makes more money if someone pays for their services without Microsoft having to lose money on subsidized hardware. Where do you think Microsoft makes money on Xbox? It isn't the hardware.

We need to get this straight because you're arguing against points that I'm not attempting to make. I don't disagree with Microsoft's business strategy at all and I think they are on their way to growing immensely.

I'm not angry with MS, I'm not saying Sony didn't buy exclusives. I'm not saying any of that crap that you keep putting into my mouth.
I'm only saying that IF (I didn't read the PR) Microsoft said they are buying up studios to reach more players, then it's at the expense of Playstation and Nintendo gamers. Gamepass on their competitor's consoles is not an option because it would destroy their competitors' business. Microsoft is effectively limiting those game's players because games that were previously on Playstation and Nintendo no longer will be.

Sony is hypocritical too if they are buying up studios, making games exclusive, and saying it's to reach more gamers.
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
My response to the entire first part of this that I don't think Microsoft should become 3rd party or change their current plans. I was only mentioning a hypothetical way that would alleviate them of hypocrisy because then they would actually be reaching more players without removing current ones.

I'm not going to continue arguing with you when you keep making assumptions about me. I was talking about your issue with people saying Microsoft are hypocrites. I don't know why you keep going off on all these huge tangents.



Sony would lose money because now instead of them getting a cut on 3rd party games, Microsoft is getting all of the profits through gamepass. Sony's first party games make them money and are a reason to buy their console vs another console that doesn't have their games.

If somebody likes Playstation exclusives enough to buy a Playstation over an Xbox, then they will be buying 3rd plarty games on Playstation too, making Sony money. Gamepass circumvents Sony's business model and would put them out of business, unless you believe Sony could survive solely on first party games.



Microsoft makes more money if someone pays for their services without Microsoft having to lose money on subsidized hardware. Where do you think Microsoft makes money on Xbox? It isn't the hardware.

We need to get this straight because you're arguing against points that I'm not attempting to make. I don't disagree with Microsoft's business strategy at all and I think they are on their way to growing immensely.

I'm not angry with MS, I'm not saying Sony didn't buy exclusives. I'm not saying any of that crap that you keep putting into my mouth.
I'm only saying that IF (I didn't read the PR) Microsoft said they said they are buying up studios to reach more players, then it's at the expense of Playstation and Nintendo gamers. Gamepass on their competitor's consoles is not an option because it would destroy their competitor's business. Microsoft is effectively limiting those game's players because games that were previously on Playstation and Nintendo no longer will be.

Sony is hypocritical too if they are buying up studios, making games exclusive, and saying it's to reach more gamers.
Phil Main goal is to bring down the consoles, because the cost of those consoles are determent to reach those gamers. And focus on cloud gaming, which costs $15 a month to play gamepass games.
He sees his console, PS, switch as barrier, which blocks normal gamers from accessing those games. Consoles in nature are limited quantity. They will never reach alot of gamers, because of how long it takes to produce them.
The ps4 sold 116m in 8 years. The ps5 would take that long to sell that much or 140m ps5. Same thing for switch, which hit 100+m in 5 years.
The main barrier is price of the console, and the price of the games. If you buy switch for $300, you will also spend $650 after taxes on 10 exclusive games. total of $1000 just to play 10 games. That is just exclusive games, plus the system. Not counting other games.
Phil with xcloud can reach alot of gamers with gamepass at $15. This will make alot of gamers access his system games.

Now with 3rd party games, they dont belong to any consoles. Its up to the company, to decide where they want to release their games. Atlus and square are example of that. If EA and Ubisoft were to suddenly decide not to put their games on xbox, there is nothing MS can do. That is something gamers need to understand it.

If MS didnt buy activision and bethesda, another entity would buy them. They can take those games from those systems.
 

Boglin

Member
Phil Main goal is to bring down the consoles, because the cost of those consoles are determent to reach those gamers. And focus on cloud gaming, which costs $15 a month to play gamepass games.
He sees his console, PS, switch as barrier, which blocks normal gamers from accessing those games. Consoles in nature are limited quantity. They will never reach alot of gamers, because of how long it takes to produce them.
The ps4 sold 116m in 8 years. The ps5 would take that long to sell that much or 140m ps5. Same thing for switch, which hit 100+m in 5 years.
The main barrier is price of the console, and the price of the games. If you buy switch for $300, you will also spend $650 after taxes on 10 exclusive games. total of $1000 just to play 10 games. That is just exclusive games, plus the system. Not counting other games.
Phil with xcloud can reach alot of gamers with gamepass at $15. This will make alot of gamers access his system games.

Now with 3rd party games, they dont belong to any consoles. Its up to the company, to decide where they want to release their games. Atlus and square are example of that. If EA and Ubisoft were to suddenly decide not to put their games on xbox, there is nothing MS can do. That is something gamers need to understand it.

If MS didnt buy activision and bethesda, another entity would buy them. They can take those games from those systems.
I don't disagree with anything in this post. In a future where more and more people stream games, I'm absolutely sure there will eventually be boatloads of players from a myriad of different devices all playing the same titles together.

For the next few years, however, the amount of total players will be limited due to the new exclusivity. People who don't want to stream will be forced to switch away from Sony or Nintendo consoles to play the franchises they previously had access to. Pulling the franchises away from where people were previously playing them is the opposite of making them more available and putting gamepass on the competitions' consoles to continue to access those franchises isn't viable for those companies.

I'm not suggesting Microsoft should act like a charity. I'm not suggesting Microsoft should go third party. I'm not suggesting Microsoft is making a bad business decision.
I'm only saying they are restricting, rather than expanding the current audience of these franchises. Their messaging can be viewed as hypocritical.

If Microsoft pulled the Next CoD from Playstation, do you think there would be more or less people playing it?
 
Last edited:

kingfey

Banned
For the next few years, however, the amount of total players will be limited due to the new exclusivity. People who don't want to stream will be forced to switch away from Sony or Nintendo consoles to play the franchises they previously had access to. Pulling the franchises away from where people were previously playing them is the opposite of making them more available and putting gamepass on the competitions' consoles to continue to access those franchises isn't viable for those companies.
Currently cloud gaming format is not easy to get for console players. I can agree with that.
As for the games, the access will depend on the console owners. At this point, MS has a condition. That is what is blocking the access for these games.
We have to understand, that Sony owns playstation. Gamers dont own that system. Its up to Sony, whether they are willing to negotiate with MS, in order to get these games.

I'm not suggesting Microsoft should act like a charity. I'm not suggesting Microsoft should go third party. I'm not suggesting Microsoft is making a bad business decision.
I'm only saying they are restricting, rather than expanding the current audience of these franchises. Their messaging can be viewed as hypocritical.
Sony is the one who has the last say. If MS is ready to put their games on Playstation, Sony will need to approve it. MS isnt 3rd party publisher. They are direct competitor to Sony.

If Microsoft pulled the Next CoD from Playstation, do you think there would be more or less people playing it?
From MS pc treatment, alot of steam users will play the game. If they cut off playstation, then they will lose those userbase. That is bad for MS, Which I will personally condemn them, especially when Phil said, it will be on the ps5. Plus they will suffer BR nightmare.

Other games, are different. Since they dont have the same power as COD.
 

kingfey

Banned
They don’t have anything interesting releasing for this year until Starfield in November at the moment.

Of course things might get announced soon but that looks unlikely.
We have unannounced games from Bethesda, which MS is withholding. So far, the only 2 we have from them is redfall, motorsport, and starfield. You also have deathloop hitting xbox this year.
This year is like last year of PlayStation.
 

64bitmodels

Member
I disagree. Unique hardware and the games that are designed specifically for them are what makes consoles great/worthwhile in the first place.
this might have been true back in 1992 when console hardware varied wildly, but nowadays most consoles are designed the exact same....
yeah PS5 has a faster SSD, yeah Xbox has a better GPU, but they're the same outside of that. If consoles really had unique hardware, more of their games would take advantage of that hardware. but like, there's no way Rift Apart can't run on an Xbox. There's no way Forza Motorsport can't run on a Playstation.
Really, the only company making an attempt to prove this would be Nintendo, but recently they've fallen out of this as well. Most switch games have a control scheme that can easily be replicated on an Xbox pad. the only thing they have going for them is their portability, and if the steam deck is any indication, they don't even have THAT.
Meanwhile looking at consoles from 1992 and it's like, yeah exclusives make sense. Sonic 2 has no chance of running on a SNES. Mario Kart can't run on a Sega. That's why exclusives were a thing. Nowadays though...? not much of a reason
 

Boglin

Member
Currently cloud gaming format is not easy to get for console players. I can agree with that.
As for the games, the access will depend on the console owners. At this point, MS has a condition. That is what is blocking the access for these games.
We have to understand, that Sony owns playstation. Gamers dont own that system. Its up to Sony, whether they are willing to negotiate with MS, in order to get these games.


Sony is the one who has the last say. If MS is ready to put their games on Playstation, Sony will need to approve it. MS isnt 3rd party publisher. They are direct competitor to Sony.
That's true. Technically, Sony could agree to put Gamepass on Playstation.
I could also pay some dude to screw my gf but why the hell would I do that?
Sony would be choosing to kill their profits and I imagine share holders would sue Sony for tanking their investments.
Unless Microsoft gave them a substantial cut of the profits, it is simply idiotic to entertain the idea that it's a real option for Sony to put Gamepass on Playstation. Microsoft knows this.

From MS pc treatment, alot of steam users will play the game. If they cut off playstation, then they will lose those userbase. That is bad for MS, Which I will personally condemn them, especially when Phil said, it will be on the ps5. Plus they will suffer BR nightmare.

Other games, are different. Since they dont have the same power as COD.
I only used COD as an easy example to show that removing games from playstation would shrink, not grow the player market.

But I do think it's a smart move for Microsoft to make these big purchases and I can see Microsoft dominating 10 years from now.
Regardless of how effective of a business strategy it is, though, if they say these purchases are to reach more players, then they go on to remove the ability for other consoles to play franchises that were previously available to them then that's pure marketing PR. Smart, but BS.
Microsoft offering them the option to play the games at the cost of their businesses is not a sincere offer.

I want to reiterate one more time that I haven't actually read any of the PR. I don't know if Microsoft actually claimed to be purchasing these studios in order to make the games available to more players. I'm just saying it's disingenuous if they did.
 

ChiefDada

Member
this might have been true back in 1992 when console hardware varied wildly, but nowadays most consoles are designed the exact same....

Why do people keep saying this? Prior to PS4/Xbox One, console architecture varied significantly. You think PS3 and 360 had similar architecture? You think PS2 and OG Xbox were similar?

yeah PS5 has a faster SSD, yeah Xbox has a better GPU, but they're the same outside of that. If consoles really had unique hardware, more of their games would take advantage of that hardware. but like, there's no way Rift Apart can't run on an Xbox. There's no way Forza Motorsport can't run on a Playstation.

We both know there is no way to confirm or refute this. All we can go on is what 3rd party developers who have been willing to speak up claiming that PS5 can do things that other consoles or PC can't do, due to it's i/o architecture.
 

64bitmodels

Member
Why do people keep saying this? Prior to PS4/Xbox One, console architecture varied significantly. You think PS3 and 360 had similar architecture? You think PS2 and OG Xbox were similar?
I use 90s consoles because that's when they were the most different and varied significantly. they apply to PS2 vs Xbox and PS3 vs 360 as well, but it makes the most sense for 90s consoles cuz that was the biggest difference overall. Like the difference between a SNES and a Genesis is far, FAR greater than the difference between a 360 and a PS3.
 

Akuji

Member
Phil is a Walking lie Detector. When his mouth moves He is indeed lying.

We need a Software Update for when He Types on a keyboard. Because i have seen him type without moving his Mouth.

But surely the Biggest xbox Event with the most games ever is just around the corner and if not then the next one will be.
 

oldergamer

Member
Phil is a Walking lie Detector. When his mouth moves He is indeed lying.

We need a Software Update for when He Types on a keyboard. Because i have seen him type without moving his Mouth.

But surely the Biggest xbox Event with the most games ever is just around the corner and if not then the next one will be.
You're full of crap dude.
 

Lognor

Member
Phil still up in here triggering you all? LOL why are we at close to 300 posts? "OMG the hypocrisy!!!!" grow up
 
Jim Ryan is the biggest woke activist in gaming industry
Phil Spencer is the biggest hypocrite
Bobby Kotick is the sleaziest

No wonder western game industry going down the toilet
 
Half of neogaf:

Clearly that's a regular neogaffer struggling with the one eyed monster. Feel pity for those that need a super magnum xxxxxl condom for their ultra magnum dong.
 

kingfey

Banned
That's true. Technically, Sony could agree to put Gamepass on Playstation.
I could also pay some dude to screw my gf but why the hell would I do that?
Sony would be choosing to kill their profits and I imagine share holders would sue Sony for tanking their investments.
Unless Microsoft gave them a substantial cut of the profits, it is simply idiotic to entertain the idea that it's a real option for Sony to put Gamepass on Playstation. Microsoft knows this.
Which makes MS not responsible, if Playstation users lose access to the game. Its all up to Sony at this point.


I only used COD as an easy example to show that removing games from playstation would shrink, not grow the player market.
Users will grow alot, because of gamepass. Before, people had to spend $60 on annual COD. Now they just pay $15. Add that to how many people can access the game on steam, windows pc, xbox, and xcloud.
The market will grow, because the barrier is low now.


Regardless of how effective of a business strategy it is, though, if they say these purchases are to reach more players, then they go on to remove the ability for other consoles to play franchises that were previously available to them then that's pure marketing PR. Smart, but BS.
Microsoft offering them the option to play the games at the cost of their businesses is not a sincere offer.
You have to account the price of these games now.
Activision+Blizzard+bethesda+Xbox games cost $15 in form of gamepass.

Your model depends on $60-$70 price per game, which gives low users compared to $15 gamepass, which can attract alot of poor gamers.

Normal gaming pc is $500-$700, which can last you 3-4 years. Unlike Consoles, PC has other uses. Alot of people have devices like these. But they can't spend $60 on every game. $15 gamepass is good deal for them, which allows them to play all these games.

MS is looking at this angle. Right now, people are buying ps5, to play Playstation games. And because everyone has a pc, these Playstation users can play those games on pc. They aren't forcing users to specifically buy an Xbox.


I want to reiterate one more time that I haven't actually read any of the PR. I don't know if Microsoft actually claimed to be purchasing these studios in order to make the games available to more players. I'm just saying it's disingenuous if they did.
These purchases are mainly to provide content for gamepass. Which you can play it on any windows computer.
MS isnt taking these games from playstation users, and keeping on their consoles. They are putting these games, on devices they use everyday.
The hypocrisy would be ignoring these systems, and crying for preferred systems.
 

kingfey

Banned
But Phil is a hypocriteeeeeeeeeeee, wahhhhhhhh. He totally promised to kneecap the entire Xbox division. That is totally what he said, wahhhhhhhh.
People are looking at "my system is not getting these games, you are a bad liar" angle.
How expensive is cheap computer?
None of activision/Blizzard games are demanding.
 

soulbait

Member
Holy Shit, reading through this thread makes me happy I grew up and once I hit my 20's none of this console warring bullshit matters to me. It is ridiculous the way you guys just argue back and forth over the smallest of things.

I openly admit that I am a Xbox first gamer. What I mean by that, I prefer to play games on Xbox whenever possible (the controller being the main driver for me). However, I still own a switch, PS4 Pro, PSVR, (damn scalpers, I want a PS5 now), and a gaming PC. I enjoy it all.

There is one thing to talk differences in systems, and where you find strengths and weaknesses:
  • XSX - GamePass, first party shooters, Smart Delivery/Cross Save (being able to go from XSX, to my Xbox One X, to my PC with no issues is amazing)
  • PS5 - first party story-driven adventure games (holding out to play H:FW for when I get PS5), cool looking new controller, PSVR
  • Nintendo - that Nintendo charm.
Why argue about them. We all have our preferences, it does not mean one is better than the other? And so what if on paper has one feature that is better than the other, as long as it plays games that you enjoy have fun. Quit battling for your choice.

It is so dumb and childish.

Signed, 39 year old gamer.
 

kingfey

Banned
Holy Shit, reading through this thread makes me happy I grew up and once I hit my 20's none of this console warring bullshit matters to me. It is ridiculous the way you guys just argue back and forth over the smallest of things.

I openly admit that I am a Xbox first gamer. What I mean by that, I prefer to play games on Xbox whenever possible (the controller being the main driver for me). However, I still own a switch, PS4 Pro, PSVR, (damn scalpers, I want a PS5 now), and a gaming PC. I enjoy it all.

There is one thing to talk differences in systems, and where you find strengths and weaknesses:
  • XSX - GamePass, first party shooters, Smart Delivery/Cross Save (being able to go from XSX, to my Xbox One X, to my PC with no issues is amazing)
  • PS5 - first party story-driven adventure games (holding out to play H:FW for when I get PS5), cool looking new controller, PSVR
  • Nintendo - that Nintendo charm.
Why argue about them. We all have our preferences, it does not mean one is better than the other? And so what if on paper has one feature that is better than the other, as long as it plays games that you enjoy have fun. Quit battling for your choice.

It is so dumb and childish.

Signed, 39 year old gamer.
Its all comes down to "I like this platform, therefore, I hate your platform".
If you own all the system, you will find that all are shit. And only good one, is the one that can grab your attention for a longer period of time.

But if you are stuck with 1 system, you will think the other system is shit, since you are enjoying this system alot. Hence why people bring up these stupid comparison.

At the end of the day, internet forum/social media plays a huge part in this problem. 1 stupid person is easy to counter. But if you got alot of stupid people, agreeing on 1 stupid thing, you got an army of stupid to deal with. That is with fanboys are right now. Bunch of stupid people, who found other stupid agreeing their stupid shit, and formed a group.
 

NickFire

Member
Its all comes down to "I like this platform, therefore, I hate your platform".
If you own all the system, you will find that all are shit. And only good one, is the one that can grab your attention for a longer period of time.

But if you are stuck with 1 system, you will think the other system is shit, since you are enjoying this system alot. Hence why people bring up these stupid comparison.

At the end of the day, internet forum/social media plays a huge part in this problem. 1 stupid person is easy to counter. But if you got alot of stupid people, agreeing on 1 stupid thing, you got an army of stupid to deal with. That is with fanboys are right now. Bunch of stupid people, who found other stupid agreeing their stupid shit, and formed a group.
Revisionist history. This thread came down to "I like this platform, therefore I must argue with gaming enthusiasts for pointing out hypocrisy from someone associated with it."
 
We have unannounced games from Bethesda, which MS is withholding. So far, the only 2 we have from them is redfall, motorsport, and starfield. You also have deathloop hitting xbox this year.
This year is like last year of PlayStation.
This is what PS put out last year:

2021 PS lineup:
Returnal
Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart
Deathloop
Destruction AllStars
kena bridge of spirits
Nioh 2 Remastered
Final Fantasy VII Remake Intergrade
 
Last edited:

Swift_Star

Gold Member
Well... that thought that some gamers should not "weaponise" the games... Well, there is no need anymore. As much as there is no need for consoles for me, for instance.


Well... what make me buy a console is it's exclusives. My PS3 was bough because inFAMOUS, Gran Turismo, Uncharted, Neptunia, God of War, MGS4, Folklore and others. The same could be applied to 360, where I recently get if based in some exclusives as Dead or Alive 3 and 4, Forza, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon and others.


If I can get any game anywhere, well... I just don't need a console anymore. I'll just wait for instance, GT7 gets a PC release and any Xbox game can be played at PC nowadays. The fun thing is that both plataform's holders games might be possible to play in the Steam Deck and that could be really amusing (probably at lowest settings, yet could be amazing).


To me, both, Ryan and Spencer are trying to kill console market. I can understand Microsoft doing it to bring all to Windows. There is a huge reason for that when you are Microsoft. The same can't be said about Sony.


That being said, now I don't need anymore an overpriced piece of plastic to play some games. And I'm ok with that.
If consoles are overpriced, what about the rtx3xxx series and the future rtx4xxx series? Bad trolling is bad.
 

Swift_Star

Gold Member
Phil Main goal is to bring down the consoles, because the cost of those consoles are determent to reach those gamers. And focus on cloud gaming, which costs $15 a month to play gamepass games.
He sees his console, PS, switch as barrier, which blocks normal gamers from accessing those games. Consoles in nature are limited quantity. They will never reach alot of gamers, because of how long it takes to produce them.

The ps4 sold 116m in 8 years. The ps5 would take that long to sell that much or 140m ps5. Same thing for switch, which hit 100+m in 5 years.
The main barrier is price of the console, and the price of the games. If you buy switch for $300, you will also spend $650 after taxes on 10 exclusive games. total of $1000 just to play 10 games. That is just exclusive games, plus the system. Not counting other games.
Phil with xcloud can reach alot of gamers with gamepass at $15. This will make alot of gamers access his system games.

Now with 3rd party games, they dont belong to any consoles. Its up to the company, to decide where they want to release their games. Atlus and square are example of that. If EA and Ubisoft were to suddenly decide not to put their games on xbox, there is nothing MS can do. That is something gamers need to understand it.

If MS didnt buy activision and bethesda, another entity would buy them. They can take those games from those systems.
You can’t be serious. You’re acting like Phil is some kind of gaming Jesus.
 

Boglin

Member
Which makes MS not responsible, if Playstation users lose access to the game. Its all up to Sony at this point.
I don't know if you're being serious or not.
Sony can't choose to purposefully hurt their own business because it breaks their agreement with their investors. The shareholders will sue them.

But even if they wouldn't be sued, why would Sony choose to commit suicide like that? It's not a real choice. The offer is BS.
This was all besides the point anyway. I think Microsoft was smart to buy the companies and to seek to become the best game streaming service.

Users will grow alot, because of gamepass. Before, people had to spend $60 on annual COD. Now they just pay $15. Add that to how many people can access the game on steam, windows pc, xbox, and xcloud.
The market will grow, because the barrier is low now.
Are you saying this upcoming COD release would have more players with on Xbox, Gamepass and PC than it would on Xbox, PS4 and PC?

You have to account the price of these games now.
Activision+Blizzard+bethesda+Xbox games cost $15 in form of gamepass.

Your model depends on $60-$70 price per game, which gives low users compared to $15 gamepass, which can attract alot of poor gamers.

Normal gaming pc is $500-$700, which can last you 3-4 years. Unlike Consoles, PC has other uses. Alot of people have devices like these. But they can't spend $60 on every game. $15 gamepass is good deal for them, which allows them to play all these games.
I'm not arguing if Gamepass is a good deal or not. I agree it's a great deal. I'm arguing that someone who exclusively plays on a playstation or Nintendo console won't be able to play the same franchises they used to.

MS is looking at this angle. Right now, people are buying ps5, to play Playstation games. And because everyone has a pc, these Playstation users can play those games on pc. They aren't forcing users to specifically buy an Xbox.



These purchases are mainly to provide content for gamepass. Which you can play it on any windows computer.
MS isnt taking these games from playstation users, and keeping on their consoles. They are putting these games, on devices they use everyday.
The hypocrisy would be ignoring these systems, and crying for preferred systems.
Why do you think those Playstation gamers are choosing to play on consoles rather than PC currently? As in right now.

Many gamers play exclusively on one or two consoles. Console gamers now have to buy an Xbox when they didn't need to before.

You saying every Playstation gamer is also a PC gamer so they're not actually losing any games is top tier PR speak
 

Lognor

Member
False. Sony is releasing their games on pc.
Your argument holds no water to the reality that Phil preaches something and does other thing.
Sony is releasing games on PC? Where?! Oh you're talking about the two or three games they've released YEARS after the PS release? GTFO with that nonsense. Microsoft is doing a much better job of supporting PC. PC gamers should want Microsoft to acquire these studios, not Sony. Sony *may* give you a game three years later. Nope, Microsoft is the way to go.
 

kingfey

Banned
You can’t be serious. You’re acting like Phil is some kind of gaming Jesus.
The guy literally made a cloud gaming subscription. He opened xbox to pc, and made xbox day1 games on pc. You dont even need to buy xbox to play their games. Especially, when his management are Microsoft.
Yeah, he is the gaming Jesus, if you want to make fun of him.
No one has done what he did. Only reggie surpassed him.
 

kingfey

Banned
I don't know if you're being serious or not.
Sony can't choose to purposefully hurt their own business because it breaks their agreement with their investors. The shareholders will sue them.

But even if they wouldn't be sued, why would Sony choose to commit suicide like that? It's not a real choice. The offer is BS.
This was all besides the point anyway. I think Microsoft was smart to buy the companies and to seek to become the best game streaming service.
Then why would MS bend over to Sony? They own these games. They have offer on the table. Its either take that, or no games on that console.
You offering too much excuses to Sony. This is business. That is how business work. No one does charity business.


Are you saying this upcoming COD release would have more players with on Xbox, Gamepass and PC than it would on Xbox, PS4 and PC?
Once MS completes the deal, they will move call of duty to gamepass users, and steam. That is alot of customers for the game.
FYI, forza horizon 5 had 18m users. Call of duty would do more than that.


I'm not arguing if Gamepass is a good deal or not. I agree it's a great deal. I'm arguing that someone who exclusively plays on a playstation or Nintendo console won't be able to play the same franchises they used to.
What is holding them down from playing on pc, xcloud? Why do they need these specific devices?
These systems aren't entitled to these games, since they don't own them. These are 3rd party games. You can literally buy the exclusives for them. Spiderman and SF5 showed that. Gamers can move to other devices. They aren't forced to buy xbox.

Why do you think those Playstation gamers are choosing to play on consoles rather than PC currently? As in right now.
Because ps4 is done, and there is ps5 in the wild now. They are making the choice of getting ps5, and not bothering playing the game on their PC browser, or even decent pc, which can play these games.

The entitlement is getting too much at this point.


Many gamers play exclusively on one or two consoles. Console gamers now have to buy an Xbox when they didn't need to before.
You are not forced to buy xbox. You can get $500 to play xbox games. MS isnt Sony or Nintendo, where you have buy their devices. They gave you the choice to play where you want. Pc, Xcloud, and Xbox consoles. You aren't chained to 1 system.

If you cant get any of these systems, then it's your fault.


You saying every Playstation gamer is also a PC gamer so they're not actually losing any games is top tier PR speak
Are you saying those guys dont have computer, or laptop? We are in 2022. Everyone has a computer.
There is a MS store, which you can download xbox app, subscribe to gamepass and play those games.


I have been looking these points from your angle, but it seems, that you are holding Sony to a higher level, while demanding more from MS.

At this point, we need to stop the conversation.
 

Dick Jones

Gold Member
You can’t be serious. You’re acting like Phil is some kind of gaming Jesus.
You can trust that poster, he is a PC owner 😂😂😂😂😂

The stench of console warrior is hilarious in this thread. It's good that buying third party publishers so they can be available to less platforms. I'd rather posters just admit that Phil bought Bethesda as he released a console with zero exclusives and had to deflect. He also bought Activision after taking advantage of poor press on Bobby K. MS offered 80 and Bobby K offered around and got 0 offers so MS offered 95. Great negotiating skills. I also enjoyed the games that came out post ownership that MS fanboys claimed were all their work.You worked hard on that game that was announced and mainly worked outside your stewardship. It's like buying Messi and claiming the Ballon D'Or he won the previous season.

Also Sony fanboys need to accept that Bethesda games after Ghostwire are gone from Sony ecosystems, and it's a pity that Activision games aren't the same after 2023. MS were dead in the water and need to buy Bethesda and Activision to stay relevant. We can see that Sony are going Nintendo pricing with no competition. This current course of action may make Sony more honest. It also makes MS relevant. Nintendo transcend current marketplace issues after these years so these moves make zero difference.

TLDR: Sony fans please accept Bethesda is gone and MS fans accept you had to buy in by over 70bn to stay relevant with a decade of extremely poor management. Nintendo give zero shits to all moves by MS and Sony.
 
Top Bottom